The Press

Watson can be ‘safely managed’ in the community, lawyer says

A decision about whether convicted murderer Scott Watson is ready to be released from jail has been delayed, after the Parole Board questioned his risk of reoffendin­g.

Watson – convicted of murdering Marlboroug­h friends Olivia Hope and Ben Smart in January 1998 – appeared before the Parole Board yesterday morning from prison via video link.

Watson has always denied killing Hope and Smart after a New Year’s Eve party at Furneaux Lodge in the Marlboroug­h Sounds, but was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 2000. He remains in a Canterbury jail, having been denied parole four times.

At yesterday’s hearing, panel convenor Sir Ron Young questioned why various psychologi­cal reports done over the past three years differed in their findings about Watson’s risk of reoffendin­g.

Young said a report in November 2021 found that Watson was at a high to very high risk of reoffendin­g, while a Department of Correction­s psychologi­cal report in September 2023 assessed him as being at a medium risk of reoffendin­g. A recent private psychologi­cal report assessed him as low-risk.

“Obviously, that is a potentiall­y confusing array of various assessment­s over quite a long period of time,” Young said. “We want to be clear in our own mind precisely what Mr Watson’s risk of reoffendin­g is.”

Watson’s lawyer, Kerry Cook, pointed out that the two most recent reports

agreed that Watson was “presenting with a level of risk that can be safely managed in the community”.

Cook said the reports showed there had been “a change” in risk.

Young questioned what this change was triggered by. “Of course risk can change. Risk generally changes because people do rehabilita­tion, come to understand why they’ve offended the way they have, and thereby they reduce their risk – and that’s perfectly understand­able.

“But none of that applies in Mr Watson’s case,” he said.

“So we were, I guess, struggling to identify what were the factors that had caused the change to go from high or very high down to medium, and the fact that he would be able to be released – which seemed like a huge difference over a short period of time without any identifyin­g reasons that we could understand.”

Young proposed that a hearing be convened where the different psychologi­sts appeared before the Parole Board and answered questions about their reports, so board members could understand the varying risk assessment­s.

Cook did not oppose the suggestion, but voiced concern about when such a hearing would be able to happen.

Watson listened intently as Young and Cook spoke. He had two supporters present at the hearing, one via video link.

On a question from Young about the progress of his current psychologi­cal treatment in prison, Watson said he had one session remaining, during which a safety plan (a plan detailing how individual­s who have been in prison can be supported to transition back into society) would be finalised.

Asked by Young if he had anything to add or ask, Watson answered: “No, no, just a thank you for letting me be here today.”

The hearing was adjourned to a date still to be determined.

Watson’s case is set to be reconsider­ed by the Court of Appeal on June 10.

“[There is] a potentiall­y confusing array of various assessment­s over quite a long period of time.”

Sir Ron Young, Parole Board convenor