Key Takeaways
- Hannon‑McGinn (28) and Howe (27) were convicted of murdering 55‑year‑old Sidney Ross Bridson in October 2023.
- The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict after four days of deliberations; sentencing is set for 1 September.
- Hannon‑McGinn admitted shooting Bridson but claimed self‑defence; he also pleaded guilty to arson.
- Howe denied involvement, asserting he was present only as a by‑stander and fled after the shooting.
- The Crown portrayed the killing as intentional and “cold‑blooded,” while the defence argued Hannon‑McGinn acted under a mistaken belief of imminent threat.
- Mathew David Hannon, the father of Hannon‑McGinn, had previously been sentenced for manslaughter in the same incident and was found to have engineered the death.
- The case highlighted a long‑standing feud between the Hannon and Bridson families over hunting rights, described by witnesses as a “Wild West” conflict.
- Emotional reactions in the courtroom included Howe’s farewell to his mother and applause for the jurors upon their discharge.
Case Overview
The High Court at New Plymouth heard the prosecution of Hannon‑McGinn and Howe for the murder of Sidney Ross Bridson, a 55‑year‑old man living on Waitaanga Road, east of Taranaki. Bridson was shot in the stomach on the deck of his home in the early hours of 11 October 2023, subsequently dragged inside, and his house was set alight. The fire destroyed the property, leaving only a charred ruin. The defendants were brought to trial after a police investigation linked them to the shooting and the arson that followed.
Defendants and Charges
Hannon‑McGinn, aged 28, admitted to firing the fatal shot but pleaded not guilty to murder, asserting self‑defence. He entered a guilty plea to arson at the outset of the trial. Howe, 27, denied both murder and arson, maintaining he was merely present when the shooting occurred and had no knowledge that his friend intended to kill Bridson. The Crown charged both men with murder and arson, seeking convictions that would reflect the alleged premeditated nature of the killing.
Trial Proceedings
The trial spanned four weeks, during which the jury heard testimony from neighbours, police officers, and forensic experts. Justice Helen McQueen summed up the case to the jury on Wednesday, after which deliberations began around 12:30 p.m. The jurors were dismissed at 4:30 p.m. to return the next day, continuing their discussions until approximately 1:30 p.m. on the following day, when they signaled a unanimous verdict. Throughout the proceedings, the public gallery was filled with Bridson’s whānau and friends, Howe’s family, police investigators, and local lawyers, underscoring the case’s community impact.
Crown’s Argument
Prosecutors contended that the killing was intentional and carried out in “cold blood.” They argued that Hannon‑McGinn had gone to Bridson’s residence with a firearm not merely as a precaution but with the purpose of shooting him. The Crown highlighted the planning evident in the subsequent arson, suggesting the fire was used to destroy evidence and conceal the murder. They emphasized that Bridson, who suffered from terminal cancer, posed no imminent threat that would justify lethal force, undermining the self‑defence claim.
Defense Arguments
Hannon‑McGinn’s counsel maintained that their client had visited Bridson to discuss the ongoing feud between his father, Mathew David Hannon, and the victim. They asserted that Hannon‑McGinn carried a gun solely as a precautionary measure. According to the defence, Bridson reached for what appeared to be a weapon—a stick—prompting Hannon‑McGinn to fear for his life and fire in a “kill or be killed” mindset. Howe’s lawyers argued that he was unaware of any plan to shoot Bridson, stating he fled immediately after hearing the gunshot and was not present when the house was set ablaze. They sought to distance Howe from any criminal responsibility for either the shooting or the arson.
Verdict and Sentencing
After deliberating, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict on both murder and arson charges for each defendant. Justice McQueen thanked the jurors for their service before excusing them, prompting applause from the public gallery as they left the courtroom. Convictions were entered, and Hannon‑McGinn and Howe were remanded into custody ahead of sentencing scheduled for 1 September. Before being taken away by Corrections staff, Howe turned to the front row and said, “Love you, Mum,” to a woman sitting quietly there, a moment that captured the emotional toll of the proceedings on families involved.
Background of Feud
The prosecution presented evidence of a long‑standing dispute between the Hannon family and Bridson, centred on hunting rights in the rural Taranaki area. Witnesses described the conflict as resembling a “Wild West” standoff, marked by recurring tensions, alleged intimidation, and competing claims over land use. Mathew David Hannon, the father of Hannon‑McGinn, had previously been sentenced to five years and three months in prison for manslaughter related to Bridson’s death and was banned from owning firearms. The court heard that Hannon senior had orchestrated the events leading to the shooting, even though he was not physically present when the fatal shot was fired.
Legal Context and Precedent
The case underscores New Zealand’s legal treatment of self‑defence claims when the accused mistakenly perceives a threat. Courts have consistently required that the belief of imminent danger be both honest and reasonable; a mistaken belief based on a non‑lethal object such as a stick generally fails to satisfy this standard. Additionally, the joint liability principles applied here mean that a person who aids, encourages, or otherwise facilitates a murder can be held equally culpable, even if they did not pull the trigger. The earlier conviction of Mathew David Hannon for manslaughter reinforced the prosecution’s argument that the killing was the result of a planned scheme rather than a spontaneous act of self‑defence.
Conclusion
The trial of Hannon‑McGinn and Howe concluded with a clear jury verdict affirming that the killing of Sidney Ross Bridson was murder, not a justified act of self‑defence. The proceedings illuminated a bitter familial feud that escalated to lethal violence, highlighted the legal limits of self‑defence claims, and demonstrated how ancillary actions—such as arson to conceal a crime—can compound culpability. As the defendants await sentencing, the case serves as a stark reminder of how personal disputes, when coupled with access to firearms, can tragically culminate in loss of life and profound community repercussions.