Hayde v R - [2025] NZCA 607

Criminal law - Conviction appeal - Sentence appeal - Murder  

Following a jury trial, Sean Hayde was found guilty of murdering Wiremu Arapo-Ngapaku, attempting to pervert the course of justice, male assaults female and threatening to kill. His co-offender was found guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of imprisonment of 17 years. He appeals his conviction and sentence.  

Should the appeal against conviction be granted? Held: No.  
There was no prosecutorial misconduct in the way the Crown argued its case as the evidence it relied on provided a sound evidential foundation for its contention that Mr Hayde was the primary offender. As for speculative inferences in the Crown case, the Crown did no more than invite the jury to draw inferences from established facts. The Crown was entitled to rely on propensity evidence from his former partner. The trial Judge provided appropriate directions on all relevant issues. The cumulative effect of these alleged errors does not give rise to an unfair trial.  

Should the appeal against sentence be granted? Held: No.  
The High Court was correct to conclude that s 104(1A)(c) of the Sentencing Act 2002 in relation to home invasion applied; it is unrealistic to say Mr Arapo-Ngapaku had granted Mr Hayde a licence to enter his dwelling in the circumstances. As for discounts, what matters on appeal is not the methodology but whether the end sentence is manifestly excessive. The minimum period of imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case and Mr Hayde's personal circumstances, in particular premeditation, the fact there were two assailants and setting fire to the body in an attempt to avoid detection.