Key Takeaways
- Stefan Hannon‑McGinn and Ethan Howe are on trial in the New Plymouth High Court for the murder of 55‑year‑old Bridson and related arson charges.
- The Crown alleges the killing stemmed from long‑standing feuds over hunting rights on adjacent rural properties in Waitaanga, describing the area as a “Wild West” with limited services and colourful residents.
- Hannon‑McGinn admitted to shooting Bridson and setting the house on fire, claiming self‑defence, while Howe admits presence but denies criminal responsibility.
- Witness testimony painted Bridson as an outgoing, wine‑loving hunting guide who could become confrontational when drinking, yet also described him as an “all‑around good person” with inventive ideas.
- The trial is expected to run four weeks, with the jury tasked to decide whether the killing was murder or lawful self‑defence, based on conflicting accounts of intent, perception, and the events of the night of 10 October 2023.
Background of the Dispute
The feud between Bridson and the Hannon family centred on hunting activities on land bordering their properties in Waitaanga, west of Taumaranui. Bridson, known locally as “Yip Yip,” frequently hosted friends and acted as a hunting guide, often venturing behind the Hannon’s acreage. Stefan Hannon‑McGinn’s father, Hannon, took issue with these incursions, allegedly discharging his firearms to deter hunters. Tensions escalated over months, culminating in a physical altercation in August 2023 where Bridson reportedly used a pitchfork and a bottle to “give Hannon a hiding,” after which Hannon claimed he felt unsafe and fearful.
The Night of the Killing
On 10 October 2023, Bridson collected bottles of wine and a Pajero was delivered to his home as part of a car deal. That evening he allegedly set fire to the vehicle. Shortly afterward, Hannon called his son, Stefan Hannon‑McGinn, who left Hamilton with Ethan Howe and drove to the Hannon property. Crown solicitor Prue Lange told the jury that the pair then proceeded to Bridson’s residence, where Hannon‑McGinn fired a 20‑gauge shotgun at Bridson’s stomach at close range, while Howe purportedly stood watch.
Cause of Death and the Fire
Medical evidence indicated Bridson died from the gunshot wound before any flames reached the house. After the shooting, Bridson’s body was dragged inside to the lounge, and the residence was deliberately set alight. Hannon‑McGinn later telephoned emergency services at 7:39 a.m., reporting the house fire. The Crown emphasized that the arson occurred after Bridson’s death, undermining any claim that the fire was a desperate attempt to conceal a non‑fatal injury.
Defence Claims of Self‑Defence
Stefan Hannon‑McGinn’s defence team, led by Nicola Manning and Scott Bricknell, acknowledges that he fired the fatal shot but contends it was acting in self‑defence. Manning asserted that her client accepted responsibility for the arson, showing he does not shy away from accountability when appropriate, yet insists he genuinely believed his life was in imminent danger at the moment of the shooting. She indicated Hannon‑McGinn would testify to explain his perception of threat that night.
Howe’s Position and Alleged Statements
Ethan Howe, defended by Jessica Tarrant and Nick Dutch, admits he was present when Bridson died but denies any criminal responsibility. Tarrant stressed that the jury must focus on Howe’s actions, knowledge, and intent while at the two properties, rather than merely his presence. The Crown introduced alleged admissions: Howe supposedly told his girlfriend he had “done something stupid,” later clarifying they had “murdered someone,” and that Hannon‑McGinn bragged to a friend that Bridson was killed for “f** with” his father, grinning when asked who did it and replying, “Sorted it out.”
Character Witnesses and Community Perception
The Crown’s first witness, Bridson’s brother‑in‑law Anthony Kemp, depicted Bridson as humorous, inventive, and an “all‑around good person.” Kemp noted Bridson’s fondness for red wine, his tendency to speak bluntly when annoyed, and his willingness to “beat the s*** out” of Hannon on one occasion. Under cross‑examination, Kemp agreed Bridson could become fixated and “legless drunk,” but rejected the suggestion that he frequently fell out with people, framing his outbursts as drink‑induced rather than habitual.
Prosecution’s Framing of the Setting
In her opening address, Crown solicitor Prue Lange painted Waitaanga as a rural “Wild West,” lacking cellphone coverage, prone to poaching, and inhabited by “colourful characters” like Bridson and Hannon. She highlighted Bridson’s terminal cancer diagnosis, his independent lifestyle, and his reputation as a wine‑drinking, outspoken figure who could become confrontational. Lange argued these details contextualised why the feud boiled over into lethal violence.
Trial Outlook and Procedural Details
The trial before Justice Helen McQueen is scheduled for four weeks, with the prosecution planning to call 77 witnesses. Jurors have been instructed to weigh the competing narratives: the Crown’s claim of premeditated murder and arson versus the defence’s assertions of self‑defence and lack of criminal intent on Howe’s part. The outcome will hinge on whether the jury finds that Hannon‑McGinn’s belief of imminent danger was reasonable and whether Howe’s conduct amounted to participation in murder. A verdict will determine not only the fate of the two defendants but also send a message about how rural disputes are addressed under New Zealand law.