Dear Ministry of Justice,
Scott Watson; Royal Prerogative Petition Report.
I seek the release of all information considered by the Ministry and its appointed investigator Kristy McDonald QC and source documents, particularly the previously unreleased IPCA Report into the Op Tam Investigation (particularly paras 11-13), so a comparison of actual wording can be made. I believe it is in the public interest to know if there is a variation in wording between source documents and the McDonald reports relied on by the Ministry in its recommendations to the Minister, which she relied on to recommend the Governor General refuse the petition of Scott Watson for exercise of the Royal Prerogative and if there is the effect of any changes.

Yours faithfully,

Lindsay R. Kennard

Dear Heywood, Chelsea,

Further to you reply to my OIA request for information surrounding the investigation of Scott WATSON’s request for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.

The additional information I seek is as follows;
Eye Witness interviews
Transcripts of interviews with Eye Witnesses Rozelyn McNIELLY and Guy WALLACE, and interview notes by Ms Kristy McDONALD.

Notes of comparison with the evidence by the above Ms McNIELLY and Mr. WALLACE in the trial Transcripts both written and verbal in the Electronic Video Recording. I do not seek trial transcripts.

Notes of comparison with police best practise of the time, also notes of comparison with Eye Witness evidence and Eye Witness Identification guidelines from foreign jurisdictions for instance Eye Witness Guidelines for Manitoba Police 1988 Author Prof Gary Wells, Professor of Psychology, University of Manitoba FPT Heads of Prosecution Committee Working Group Report on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice particularly the Summary of Recommendations on Eye Witness Identification or Eye Witness Evidence, A Guide for Law Enforcement Research Report US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1999, Janet Reno Attorney General.

Transcripts and notes of Interviews with In-custody Informers.
Police best practice information and in-custody practice in and New Zealand and comparative guidelines for their use from commonwealth jurisdictions such as Manitoba Guidelines Respecting the Use of Jailhouse Informers and the FPT Heads of Prosecution Committee Working Group Report on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice particularly the Summary of Recommendations on In-Custody informers. McFarlane Review of recommendations of Commissions and Royal Commissions in the wrongful Convictions of David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow, Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall, and Commissions in Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States from 1912.

Notes taken during of reading of Court of Appeal ruling and in particular, its finding of “extensive cross examination on Two Trip Theory”, Notes leading to the conclusion of ‘Harmless Error’. What definitions of harmless error, definition of harmless, definition of error were used to reach this conclusion? What is the scientific basis used to reach this conclusion, is it Objective or Subjective? If a test was applied, would every reviewer reach the same conclusion? All notes used to reach this conclusion.

Recommendation Preparation
Preliminary draft notes of interim and final reports of Ms McDONALD.

Ministry notes in preparation of Ministry Report to Minister of Justice. Notes detailing reasons for accepting the alteration of the wording of direct quotes from the Independent Police Complaints Authority [example] why was the quoted para 12 “Fell short of best…” used instead of the actual wording of para 12 “ fell far short of best…”. This was hardly necessary as the IPCA had already found plenty of reasons to excuse the many shortcomings such as the police lack of documents and names of officers [this ‘lack of documents’ is a falsification as the complainant supplied the documents to the IPCA eight days before the release of the report and two days after the complainant told the Chair of the IPCA he was releasing the draft report and 50 pages of corrections to the media when the Chair refused to correct the factual errors in the report]

Addendum
This may account for the widely held belief in the Factual Innocence of Scott Watson. The reasons are many and factually objective to anyone with an once of commonsense on reading the four books and watching the one DVD would see. Interestingly the official police book Silent Evidence by 2000 Leader of the Opposition Chief (Spin Doctor) Press Secretary John Goulter, gives the most detailed scenario of the quest to find, or invent, evidence to suit the “gut feeling” of DI Rob Pope that Scott Watson was guilty only one other person was briefly considered and only one vessel was subject to a seizure warrant which was never executed all detailed in the official account.

Yours sincerely,

Lindsay R. Kennard