Legal Research
Cases
R v Hayde

R v Hayde

Case [2024] NZHC 374 29 February 2024

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-092-11967

[2024] NZHC 374

THE KING

v

SEAN ANDREW HAYDE

Hearing: 29 February 2024

Appearances:

N Fletcher, and A Al-Janabi for Crown

J-A Kincade KC, E Priest and P Wilks for Defendant

Judgment:

29 February 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau, Auckland Counsel: J-A Kincade KC/E Priest/P Wilks/A Tibbotts, Auckland

R v HAYDE [2024] NZHC 374 [29 February 2024]

[1] Sean Hayde, you are for sentence this morning for the murder of Wiremu Arapo on 20 October 2020 and the associated charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice by setting fire to his home at Minerva Terrace. You are also for sentence on representative charges of assaulting and threatening to kill your former partner.

[2] The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. Your counsel realistically and properly concedes a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Mr Arapo cannot be said to be manifestly unjust and that is the sentence the Court will impose on you. The issue for the Court this morning is the minimum period of imprisonment to be attached to that sentence of life imprisonment.

[3] First I acknowledge the family of the deceased, Mr Arapo, who are in Court today and who made a victim impact statement. The sentence the Court imposes today is imposed on behalf of society in response to Mr Hayde’s actions. It is not an attempt to be a measure or value of Mr Arapo’s life. It never could be. I also acknowledge that I have read the other victim impact reports even though they are not present.

[4] Mr Hayde, I start with a summary of the background to the offending. You met Mr Arapo through a gym. He was your boxing trainer. You and Mr Hart were friends from school days. In the first half of 2020 you introduced Mr Hart to Mr Arapo. In about July 2020 Mr Hart moved into Minerva Terrace and became Mr Arapo’s flatmate. Coincidentally they had both previously served in the New Zealand Army. At about the same time Mr Arapo introduced you to his friend, Jenifer McManus with whom he had shared a brief sexual relationship in the past. At the time you were in a relationship with the victim of your domestic violence offending, Ms O’Shea. You moved into a property at Bucklands Beach with her.

[5] Despite your relationship with Ms O’Shea, from about mid-August 2020, you and Ms McManus began a sexual relationship. Around this time Mr Arapo and Mr Hart’s relationship as flatmates deteriorated for a number of reasons. Your former friendship with Mr Arapo had also completely broken down. You had ceased communicating with each other via text messages or Facebook. Your relationship with Ms McManus and your jealousy of Mr Arapo’s connection and influence over her

seems to have been at the heart of the issue. When you talked…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Hayde

Details

AGLC: R v Hayde [2024] NZHC 374
Case: [2024] NZHC 374
Decision Date: 29 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sean Andrew Hayde, the respondent, was convicted of murdering Wiremu Arapo, attempting to pervert the course of justice by setting fire to Arapo's home, and assaulting and threatening to kill his former partner. The primary legal issue for the Court was to determine the minimum non-parole period for the murder charge, given the aggravating factors present in the case. The Court considered whether section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied, which mandates a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years for certain serious offences unless it would be manifestly unjust.

The Court concluded that while the murder itself did not reach the level of brutality or callousness required to engage section 104(1)(e), the unlawful entry into Arapo's home with the intent to assault him did engage section 104(1)(c). The Court found the murder to be particularly serious due to the premeditated nature of the assault, the location where it occurred, and the significant injuries inflicted on Arapo. Considering the totality of Hayde's offending, which also included attempting to pervert the course of justice and domestic violence offences, the Court determined a minimum non-parole period of 17 years was appropriate. After accounting for Hayde's personal circumstances and mitigating factors, the Court reduced this period by six months. Hayde was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years for the murder, six years for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and six months for the domestic violence offences, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Orders