Ethan Howe (left) and Stefan Hannon-McGinn have been accused of murdering Waitaanga Rd resident Sidney Ross Bridson and setting fire to his home with his body inside. Photo / Police / NZME
When a terminally ill man was shot dead on his doorstep, dragged inside, and his house set alight, it was either a “cold-blooded murder” or a case of “kill or be killed” for the man who pulled the trigger.
Now, it’s up to a jury to decide.
Stefan Hannon-McGinn, 28, and Ethan Howe, 27, are on trial in the High Court at New Plymouth, accused of murdering Sidney Ross Bridson at his home in Waitaanga, east of Taranaki.
Today, in the trial’s fourth week, Justice Helen McQueen summed up the case and sent the jury out to begin deliberations.
It followed closing statements from the defence and Crown yesterday, and weeks of evidence from Waitaanga locals, alleged confession witnesses, experts, police and fire investigators, and Hannon-McGinn himself.
The jury has heard Bridson was shot in the stomach on the deck of his home in the early hours of October 11, 2023, before being dragged inside and his property set alight.
The Crown alleges the accused acted at the request of Mathew David Hannon, the father of Hannon-McGinn.
Hannon and Bridson were neighbours who feuded over several issues, including hunting in the area, which witnesses described as the “Wild West”.
Hannon-McGinn has admitted to fatally shooting Bridson, who had terminal cancer, but claimed he acted in self-defence.
He pleaded guilty to arson at the beginning of the trial, while Howe denies both murder, saying he was present but not criminally responsible, and arson.
When summing up the case, Justice McQueen said the Crown argued there was no evidence to support Hannon-McGinn’s claim that the shooting was in self-defence, and rather it was in “cold blood”.
The Crown suggested Hannon-McGinn lied when giving evidence, offering a “made-up story to try [to] get him and his loyal mate, Mr Howe, out of trouble”, Justice McQueen said.
She said the Crown had emphasised the defendants thought they had “got away with murder”, showing off the shotgun after the shooting, then destroyed it when police made public appeals relating to Bridson’s death.
According to the Crown, Hannon-McGinn’s self-defence claim was also inconsistent with the confessional evidence.
That evidence included Hannon-McGinn having talked about being at Bridson’s house, calling for him to come outside and saying he then “blew him away, dragged him inside and set the house on fire”.
Hannon-McGinn is said to have told a witness, “That’s what you get for f***ing with my family”.
The Crown said Hannon-McGinn never spoke of the act being in self-defence.
However, Justice McQueen said defence lawyer Nicola Manning maintained in her closing statement that Hannon-McGinn believed he was in imminent danger when he fired the shot at Bridson.
Manning said Hannon-McGinn had visited Bridson to talk to him about the escalating dispute he had with his father, and was worried for his and his father’s safety.
She said he took a gun with him as a precaution, emphasising Waitaanga was isolated, many people had firearms, and he was going to speak with an “unpredictable man in a volatile situation”.
Bridson had become aggressive when he realised Hannon-McGinn was Hannon’s son, yelling at him with “spit coming out of his mouth” and saying “you better get the f*** off my property, or I will kill you”, Justice McQueen said, referring to Manning’s closing.
She said when Bridson reached for a stick, Hannon-McGinn fired a shot, allegedly believing Bridson had reached for a firearm, and it was a situation of “kill or be killed”.
But the Crown said in its closing that it was light outside at the time, and it was implausible to suggest he mistook a stick for a gun.
On Howe, the Crown alleged he had aided or abetted Hannon-McGinn to shoot Bridson.
Justice McQueen said it was claimed he did this by arming himself with a hunting rifle and accompanying Hannon-McGinn to Bridson’s home and standing watch as his mate fired the fatal shot.
The Crown also said Howe had knocked on Bridson’s door that night, had lied to police during his evidential interview, and his behaviour after the shooting, including retrieving the guns and showing them to others, supported his involvement.
But defence lawyer Nick Dutch told the jury in his closing statement that simply being present was not the same as aiding or abetting, Justice McQueen summarised.
Dutch disputed that Howe was armed at the time and questioned why he would need to cover Hannon-McGinn’s back in such a remote area.
Howe allegedly did not know Hannon-McGinn was going to shoot Bridson and said “what the f***” when the single shot was fired.
Dutch said Howe then ran away and was not there when the fire was started.
Justice McQueen told the jury that if Hannon-McGinn was found to have acted in self-defence and was acquitted of murder and the alternative of manslaughter, then the same must follow for Howe.
The jury retired around 12.35pm to begin deliberations, which will continue into Thursday.
Tara Shaskey is an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She joined NZME in 2022 and has worked as a journalist since 2014.