Whangārei court hears convicted murderer Sydney Bristow’s appeal on late-laid sex charges

WARNING: This article discusses sexual violation and may be distressing for some readers.

Sydney Bristow was 16 when he sexually violated a young girl, an offence that happened only months before he took part in the murder of a man at a beach early on New Year’s Day.

While the sexual abuse remained hidden for more than two decades, it was revealed in recent years when the victim came forward, and Bristow was later found guilty by a judge.

The paroled murderer then returned to prison as a convicted sex offender.

However, he has now appealed against the recent sentence, with his lawyer arguing it failed to factor in Bristow’s youth at the time of the 1998 sexual offending.

Bristow has also appealed his conviction, claiming the judge did not properly take into account his evidence at trial.

Ōmapere murder

Bristow was 17 when he was involved in the 1999 murder of Auckland man David Taylor.

Bristow, with Henare Wikaira and Kacey Wikaira, who were also teenagers, had been drinking heavily at the Ōmapere Tourist Hotel, now known as the Sands Hotel Hokianga.

Around 1am on January 1, the group became involved in disturbances at a nearby campground.

Taylor chased Kacey Wikaira from the campsite to the beach and when Taylor stopped to catch his breath, Henare Wikaira attacked him from behind, delivering what he described to police as “a good 20” of his “hardest” punches.

Bristow joined in, striking Taylor with a Lion Red bottle and hurling fist‑sized rocks at his head.

Henare Wikaira then dropped a large rock on Taylor’s head. He later died in the hospital.

Bristow was convicted of the murder in 2000 and sentenced to life imprisonment but was released after serving the minimum 10-year non-parole period.

Sexual offending allegations emerge

Then, in 2022, a woman came forward alleging Bristow had sexually violated her in 1998, when she was a child.

The sexual offending was said to have occurred just months before the unrelated murder when Bristow was 16.

Bristow denied two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and a judge-alone trial was held last year before Judge Gene Tomlinson.

At the trial, the victim said Bristow violated her when he cared for her and her sister at a Northland address.

She said that after he violated her, Bristow approached her younger sister, but the victim intervened.

As she stopped him from approaching her sister, she saw his face and identified him as Bristow.

It was only years later, after unexpectedly seeing Bristow again, that she experienced what she described as a visceral response to the trauma and went to the police.

Bristow gave evidence at his trial claiming he was never at the house at the time the sexual offending occurred, and denied ever caring for the children.

However, Judge Tomlinson found the victim’s account detailed and accurate, concluding that Bristow was guilty.

He was sentenced to five years and seven months’ imprisonment.

The case continues on appeal

Now, an appeal against his conviction and sentence has been heard in the High Court at Whangārei by Justice Andrew Becroft.

At the recent hearing, Bristow’s lawyer, James Olsen, argued Judge Tomlinson failed to properly factor in Bristow’s youth at the time of the offending when sentencing him, an issue increasingly surfacing in the Supreme Court in aged‑out youth cases.

Olsen referred to a Supreme Court decision released in March known as G v The King, which resulted in the senior court unanimously granting an appeal and sending it back to the District Court for resentence.

The defendant in that case was jailed for three years and four months when he was 19 years old for sexual violation crimes he committed when he was 15.

His appeal was filed on the grounds that the Sentencing Act should take into consideration options available if he had been sentenced in the Youth Court.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing judges must consider the likely Youth Court outcome when setting the starting point for an aged‑out offender.

It found current practice produces harsher penalties for those charged late “for reasons unrelated to either the offence or the offender”, and that inconsistency cannot be justified.

At Bristow’s appeal, Olsen also noted there were currently two similar cases before the Supreme Court with decisions due to be released in the near future.

Olsen submitted that if Bristow’s sexual violation charge had been laid in 1998, it would have been dealt with in the Youth Court and unlikely to have been transferred to the District Court.

Justice Becroft said that if charges had been laid then, a family group conference (FGC) would have been mandatory, Bristow would have had the opportunity to deny or not deny the charge and the conference would have produced recommendations.

“That process couldn’t have been sidestepped,” Justice Becroft said.

“He was denied an opportunity for an FGC, and we just don’t know what the two families would have come up with.”

Justice Becroft acknowledged it was a complicated issue when Bristow was charged almost 25 years later.

“It’s a difficult issue on how you would sentence someone for what they do when they’re 16,” he said.

Crown lawyer Jessica Fenton argued that despite Bristow’s age, the matter would have been transferred to the District Court alongside the murder charge.

Fenton said Bristow was already in custody for murder at the time, which would have made an FGC impractical.

“Because of the subsequent murder, this matter would not have been disposed of in the Youth Court ... he was 16 years and 7 months when the offending started, aged offenders couldn’t be dealt with until after they turned 17,” Fenton submitted, pointing to Bristow having been 17 at the time of the murder.

“Where would the charge have been laid? It would have been laid in the Youth Court,” Justice Becroft said.

“It would have been laid in the Youth Court, but the sentencing wouldn’t have taken place in the Youth Court,” Fenton responded.

Olsen also challenged Judge Tomlinson’s assessment of Bristow’s credibility, submitting that the judge had rejected Bristow’s evidence based on inconsistencies in his account, despite finding there were inconsistencies in the victim’s evidence, yet accepting it.

He submitted sexual allegations were inherently difficult to defend because only two people are present and there is “no independent evidence supporting or undermining either account”.

Olsen argued the judge had no proper basis to exclude Bristow’s version as a reasonable possibility and accept the complainant’s evidence as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Becroft has reserved his decision.

Shannon Pitman is a Whangārei-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region. She is of Ngāpuhi/ Ngāti Pūkenga descent and has worked in digital media for the past five years. She joined NZME in 2023.