One of the grounds of appeal is that the photographic procedure through which Watson was identified did not produce a reliable identification, and therefore should have been inadmissible.
His legal team have produced evidence from two experts on eyewitness identification evidence, Dr Gary Wells and Dr Adele Quigley-McBride, who supported the submission that the identification evidence was unreliable and its admission gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.
The Crown engaged psychology professor Dr Margaret Bull Kovera to prepare a report on the psychological research on eyewitness memory.
The Crown said it sought evidence from an academic “who works in broadly the same US academic milieu” as Watson’s visual identification experts, Drs Wells and Quigley-McBride, who will be cross-examined at the hearing.
Watson’s lawyer Nick Chisnall said it was in the interests of justice to include the report, which he described as “fresh, credible and cogent”, which would assist the court in determining the appeal.
Chisnall said Dr Kovera had reached the same conclusion as Drs Wells and Quigly-McBride, that the identification evidence was unreliable.
He said “suppressing” the report was not consistent with the Crown’s duties as a model litigant to act in a fair, detached and objective manner.
Crown prosecutor Madeleine Laracy said Dr Kovera’s evidence aligned with Watson’s expert evidence, it did not offer materially different conclusions and did not fill a critical evidential gap.
The report had been provided to Watson and under the ordinary fresh evidence procedures Watson could call Dr Kovera himself.
The Court of Appeal ruled that producing the report was not “necessary or expedient” in the interests of justice, or for determining the appeal.
RNZ