Scott Watson’s request for leave to appeal denied on ground of handling of hair samples
New Zealand’s Supreme Court has partly granted Scott Watson leave to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the appeal court correctly found no miscarriage of justice in the trial judge’s admission of Guy Wallace’s visual identification evidence.
In Watson v R [2026] NZSC 15, Olivia Hope and Ben Smart were last seen with a lone man while boarding a boat in the Endeavour Inlet. The Crown and the defence agreed that this man killed Hope and Smart in circumstances constituting murder.
At trial, the question was whether Watson was that lone man. In 1999, after a three-month trial, the court convicted him of the murders of Hope and Smart. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years.
On a reference under s 406(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961, the governor‑general referred Watson’s convictions to New Zealand’s Court of Appeal to determine whether there had been a miscarriage of justice.
The reference brought up trial evidence regarding two hairs found on a blanket on Blade, Watson’s boat. The DNA sourced from the hairs matched Hope’s.
Watson, who remained in prison, alleged that the hair evidence was inadmissible because police and a laboratory had mishandled the hair samples, risking contamination or transference of the evidence.
On 9 September 2025, the appeal court dismissed Watson’s appeal upon seeing no miscarriage of justice. According to the appeal court, the police’s and the laboratory’s precautions minimised any risks arising from the handling of the hair samples.
The appeal court also addressed the overall case against Watson, including challenges to the identification evidence at trial.
Watson applied for leave to appeal. Under the heading “Other issues,” he challenged the impact of the Crown’s alleged change in its case during the trial, specifically its eventual adoption of the “two‑trip theory.”
At trial, the Crown had asserted that Watson must have returned to shore before revisiting his boat with Hope and Smart later that morning.
Other than granting leave on the ground relating to visual identification evidence, the Supreme Court of New Zealand otherwise dismissed Watson’s application for leave to appeal upon discerning:
Regarding the visual identification evidence, the Supreme Court noted that this issue involved both admissibility and reliability.
The Supreme Court clarified that this ground did not enable Watson to assail the appeal court’s refusal to admit portions of two doctors’ evidence, as well as a media expert’s evidence in connection with press coverage.
According to the Supreme Court, under this issue, Watson also could not challenge the appeal court’s order for the production of the report of one of the Crown’s experts.
The Supreme Court accepted that this ground enabled Watson to challenge the appeal court’s rejection of a digital technology specialist’s evidence about a specific photograph. However, the Supreme Court found this evidence unlikely to be a critical factor in the analysis of the photo’s impact on the visual identification evidence.
Regarding the hair evidence, the Supreme Court ruled that the appeal court carefully assessed Watson’s concerns in connection with contamination and transference. The Supreme Court noted that the jury considered the issues, that the prosecutor’s submissions were fair, and that the judge’s directions were adequate.
Regarding the other issues Watson raised, the Supreme Court saw no need to doubt the appeal court’s analysis. However, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Watson could raise such matters to the extent the court had to weigh the evidence.
