|
To: The Executive DirectorThe Wellington District Law SocietyPO Box 494 Complaint regarding the actions of a lawyer, Nicola Crutchley, practising within the Wellington district. This complaint is made by: Christopher WatsonPO Box 336 Picton Ph/fax 03-573-8979 Mob 021-702-795 Email chris@freescottwatson.net INDEX
Outline A complaint regarding the actions of, Ms. Nicola Crutchley, a lawyer practising within the Wellington district. The actions complained of occurred, prior to, and during the trial of Scott Watson that began in June and finished in September of 1999 at the High Court in Wellington. During this trial, it is alleged, certain actions of Ms. Crutchley contravened Rule 8.01in that she misled the court. Rule 9.01 in that the “scrupulous fairness” required of a prosecutor was breached and Rule 10.02 in that She both knowingly caused witnesses to mislead the court and in submission knowingly misled the court. [Rule 10.02 applies to an advocate for the defence but logically applies also to prosecution advocates.] The rules of Professional ConductRule 8.01In the interests of the administration of justice the overriding duty of a practitioner acting in litigation is to the court or the tribunal concerned. Subject to this, the practitioner has a duty to act in the best interests of the client. Commentary
Rule 9.01A practitioner prosecuting a criminal case must do so dispassionately and with scrupulous fairness. Rule 10.02Counsel must not in the course of making submissions or cross-examining a witness say or lead a witness to say anything that might mislead the court. In particular, counsel must not make any statement to the court or put any proposition to a witness that is not supported by reasonable instructions, or that lacks factual foundation by reference to the information available to the court.[This rule logically applies also to prosecuting counsel] Short background to the trialThe trial of Scott Watson occurred over a period of twelve weeks and has been reported to have cost around five million dollars, with the investigation costing a similar amount. Over five hundred crown witnesses were called to give evidence. Many of these witness’s testimonies were irrelevant or peripheral to the case and served only to divert and confuse the court. Within the crown case was a large body of exculpatory evidence, elements of it sometimes separated by weeks or months. The trial began on June 14 1998 and the Crown case was in a state of flux for much of the duration of the trial. At least fifty witnesses were added to the witness list during the trial, and briefs of evidence were often supplied to the defence on the morning of the day after a witness had given evidence. The discovery process, overseen by Ms. Crutchley, also continued until late in the trial. There was little opportunity for deep thought or forward planning by the defence. The crown presented a particularly weak and prejudicial case and succeeded in gaining a conviction by asking the jury to make quantum leaps of reasoning by way of inferences, (or guesses). The foundation stone of the crown case submitted to the court was that every vessel in the area of Furneaux Lodge on the evening of 31/12/97 and the morning of 1/1/98, including Watson’s boat ‘Blade, had been accounted for and all except ‘blade’, eliminated. “The crown will call witnesses associated with around 150 boats which were either moored or anchored off Furneaux Lodge or which came in and left during the course of New Year’s Eve or who were moored or anchored nearby. This might seem to you a long-winded way of doing things. But this evidence is important for, and I suggest, crucial to the crown case as I have described just a minute or two ago. So please bear with us as this type of evidence is called.” Nicola Crutchley Crown opening submission A key defence contention was the existence of an unidentified vessel, or mystery ketch as described, to varying degrees, by key crown witnesses. The crown dealt with the evidence of these witnesses, thus: “As well, the crown contends that there is no compelling evidence that such a yacht as has been described, which the police initially looked for, that is the ketch, was ever in Endeavour Inlet near Furneaux Lodge ….’ Nicola Crutchley Crown opening submission Statements of Scott Watson were adduced and his estimates of time, particularly that of the time he left Furneaux lodge, (6:30 – 7:00 am), were alleged by the crown to be lies. The crown assigned Scott Watson’s boat, “Blade”, as being a vessel sighted departing at around 5:00 am. “Some people were up early on 1st January 1998 or in fact hadn’t gone to bed before the sun came up and a yacht was seen moving away from the moored and anchored boats at Furneaux Lodge in the hour before the sun actually came up and before six a.m. As well as evidence that there was little boat movement for a period after that.” ….. The crown says that it was Scott Watson in his boat leaving very early.” Nicola Crutchley Crown opening submission In support of this contention a photograph [photo 26] was produced as an exhibit purporting to have been taken at 6:00 am on 1/1/98. This complaint deals with aspects of the crown case as presented to the court and information, which it is alleged, was known to Ms. Crutchley which would or should have affected the way the crown case was structured. List of relevant documents Documentation relating to this complaint consists of the following:
Complaint one Ms. Crutchley adduced the evidence of Mr. xxxxxx What time did you wake up the next day … I was awake early I took some photographs around 6 am What did you take photograph of generally … I was intent on getting a view of the boats ahead of me and particularly getting the siluottes which you can get early in the morn and which I did get Look at Exhibit 2 photograph 26 please, can you tell the court whether that is one of the photograph that you took … yes it would be How soon after you got up after 6 do you think you took the photograph … I think I got it before then, I think memory it would have been about 6 I took the photograph That is in the morn … yes I got up straight away and took them. Trial transcript By adducing this evidence in the knowledge that it was incorrect, Ms. Crutchley contravened Rule 9.01 relating to “scrupulous fairness and also Rules 10.02 and 8.01 in that by adducing this evidence she and/or the witness misled the court. The court was also misled when photo 26 was produced as an exhibit purporting to have been taken at 6:00 am. Photo 26 does not contain the vessels ‘Blade’, ‘Unicorn’ (both small yachts) or ‘Bullet proof’ ( a ski boat). Crown evidence was that ‘Bullet proof’ left the area at between 6:30 and 6:45 am and that ‘Unicorn, left between, variously, 6:30 and 8:30 am. ‘Blade’ was assigned as being a vessel sighted leaving at around 5:00am. Some clarification is obtained if one reads the statement of xxxxxxx xxxxxxx [doc 11390] where she states: It came from somewhere in the main body of yachts moored in the bay and passed on the north side of a boat, which from the photo of the bay, was TROOPER. I think the boat had a black and white terrier [C1] on it which was barking like made. (TROOPER)[C2] There were 3 people on TROOPER, a woman and two guys[C3] , older type 30-40’s. TROOPER left about 7.00 am.[C4] We left round about 8.00 am. We went back to Blackwood Bay. As we went out of the inlet, we passed the ‘Cougarline’, a taxi going into the inlet, also the ‘Endeavour’, another water taxi. Between Blumine Island and Cherry Bay, we passed TROOPER[C5] , on motor heading toward Picton. When reading this passage it is helpful to be aware that:
It is evident, with these facts in mind, that xxxxxxx is in fact referring to ‘Unicorn’ rather than ‘Trooper’ as the vessel with a dog, with three persons aboard, leaving at 7:00 am and being passed on the way back to Picton. This statement tends to confirm other witness statements as regards to times and events (see xxxxxx) and can reasonably be taken as accurate. It refutes the suggestion that photo 26 was taken at 6:00 am and indicates a time of around 7:00 am or later. xxxxxxx was not called to give evidence. To avoid repetition, discussion of how and when Ms. Crutchley became aware of this evidence will be continued in the second part of this complaint. Suffice it to say that to produce testimony and label a photographic exhibit as being taken at 6:00 am against a body of evidence suggesting a later time can only be described as misleading and confusing to the court, and unfair to the accused, certainly so in the context of such a massive trial. Complaint Two Ms. Crutchley Breached Rule 9.01 and Rule 8.01 when she opened the crown case on the premise that all vessels moored or anchored off Furneaux Lodge had been identified. It will become apparent Ms Crutchly ‘proved’ her case in the knowledge of the existence of an unidentified “yacht” in excess of the “around 150 boats” she put before the court. “The police began to find out all the names of all the people who had been at Furneaux Lodge on New Year’s Eve and who had arrived by boat. These investigations were to follow up every such boat and their occupants……….” “The police were continuing their investigations and following up information and leads provided to them about the New Year’s eve party. Despite the wide media coverage that the police were looking for a ketch, no such ketch was found, or no such sighting was given to the police of it………”
“The crown will call witnesses associated with around 150 boats which were either moored or anchored off Furneaux Lodge or which came in and left during the course of New Year’s eve or who were moored or anchored nearby. This might seem to you a long-winded way of doing things. But this evidence is important for, and I suggest, crucial to the crown case as I have described just a minute or two ago. So please bear with us as this type of evidence is called……” “As well, the crown contends that there is no compelling evidence that such a yacht as has been described, which the police initially looked for, that is the ketch, was ever in Endeavour Inlet near Furneaux Lodge ….’ “Some people were up early on 1st January 1998 or in fact hadn’t gone to bed before the sun came up and a yacht was seen moving away from the moored and anchored boats at Furneaux Lodge in the hour before the sun actually came up and before six a.m. As well as evidence that there was little boat movement for a period after that.” Nicola Crutchley Crown opening submission It can be seen from the above excerpts that it was a major part of the crown case that all of the vessels at Furneaux Lodge had been identified and eliminated. The job sheet and statement of xxxxxx xxxxxxx are again important.30314 / JS / xxxxxx xxxxxxx / LC8773 / 300198 STATESWhen I got back in at 6.15-6.30am a wee yacht was going out of the bay. I can’t remember too much about it or what it looked like but it was chugging away. There were other people up on a yacht having coffee just to the right of us that may have seen it.11390 / ST / xxxxxx xxxxxxx / JGD391 / 040298 States: I came back to our boat and sat on the back of xxxxxxxx and had a coffee. We had swung round with the tide and I was facing north west across the bay. I remember a yacht starting its motor, and seeing a yacht come past at about 6.30 am-6.45 am.[C6] It came from somewhere in the main body of yachts moored in the bay and passed on the north side of a boat, which from the photo of the bay, was TROOPER. xxxxxxx describes a “wee yacht” leaving the area and without the knowledge of the dog aboard ‘Unicorn’ and lack of a dog, number of persons aboard and movements of ‘Trooper’ this “wee yacht” would be identified as ‘Unicorn’. With this knowledge, this yacht becomes an unidentified vessel. It is obvious that Ms Crutchley had this in mind when prior to the trial; she requested that police re-interview another witness. 14338 / JS / xxxxx xxxxxxxx/ BM6952 / 080699 NEW ZEALAND POLICEJOB SHEET OFFENCE: OPERATION TAMAt the request of the Crown Solicitor carrying out enquiries as directed with boat owner and occupant witnesses. 08/06/99 1250 hours Phone enquiry with:
xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx is the co-owner of a yacht Unicorn. She confirms that while at Fumeaux they had their dog with them which is a fox terrier. On the morning of 01/01/98 she said that their party were up drinking coffee at the back of the boat between about 6.30 to 7.30 am. Between those times she noticed a ski boat leave and she had seen that earlier beside the fishing boats. She thought that she saw another yacht leave over that period but couldn't describe it any further. B McLACHLAN Detective 6952 It is indisputable that the answers provided in this job sheet corroborate xxxxxxx’s observations and that the questions were asked in order to verify her statement. xxxxxxx was not called as a crown witness. xxxxxxxx was, but no evidence of the sighting of this unidentified yacht was led. Ms. Crutchley was aware, by her actions in having Eastgate re-interviewed, of the import of this information prior to the trial and yet continued to conduct it on the premise that all boats were accounted for and eliminated. Reference to the trial transcript of evidence regarding “all” the boats at Furneaux Lodge reveals that no small yacht left the area between 6:00 and 7:00 am and that only one person with a small yacht had told police that they had. That person is Scott Watson. The evidence supporting this proposition is the, now corroborated, statement of Scott Watson. There is still one vessel, sighted at around 5:00 am and initially described as being “about 40 ft long”, which is not now accounted for. In either case there is one excess vessel. Summary of complaints The documentation illustrates that Ms. Crutchley had knowledge of: (a.) The times that various unnamed, or wrongly named, but identifiable vessels left the area and thus had knowledge that the photo said by the crown to have been taken at 6:00 am was not in fact taken until sometime after 7:00 am.
This raises serious moral, ethical and legal considerations concerning the conduct of the crown case. Ms. Crutchley breached the Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and solicitors when she:
Attempts have been made to correspond with Ms. Crutchley regarding this matter but no reply, or acknowledgement, has been received. Chris Watson Note: Witnesses names have been removed to protect their privacy. |