Sylvia Park phone kiosk worker avoids conviction for intimate photo theft attempt

NZ Herald

23-05-2025

The consequence otherwise, the judge said, would have almost certainly been deportation and would likely be followed by a genuine threat to his safety upon his forced return to Sri Lanka due to having dishonoured his family name.
His safety would be at further risk, Judge Fraser said, if a name was put to the viral video post - 'likely continuing the social media scrum of scorn and abuse', including a large number of racist comments.
The customer's confrontation with the employee, in July last year, was viewed more than 1 million times on TikTok and was shared on other social media sites as well. It showed the irate victim insisting on an explanation from the defendant's manager as the defendant stood quietly in the background.
At the end of the video, the defendant appeared to faint.
Court documents state the victim had handed her Apple iPhone over to the Mobile Planet kiosk around 12.30 that afternoon wanting it fixed ahead of an overseas holiday.
Another employee took her information, including her phone access code, and told her to return in 45 minutes.
'She inquired why her pin number was required and was told it was to check the camera function after it was fixed,' the agreed summary of facts for the case states.
The defendant then scrolled through her photos and used the Apple AirDrop function - used to wirelessly send files between nearby phones - to send the nude photo of the customer to himself.
In the viral TikTok video, it was explained that the victim had taken the photo years ago for a partner and the employee would have needed to scroll for quite some time to get to it.
After collecting her phone, the woman received a message that an AirDrop attempt had failed. The notification included a thumbnail photo of the intimate image.
'The victim gave the staff of Mobile Planet permission to access her phone for the purpose of fixing her camera,' authorities noted in the summary of facts. 'She did not give the defendant permission to view her photographs and attempt to obtain the photographs, which are her property.'
The defendant, who has no previous criminal history, pleaded guilty to trying to access a computer system for dishonest purposes.
'He accepts this is wrong. He is deeply remorseful for it,' said defence lawyer Sarah Baird, who described her client as an 'otherwise exemplary young man who has made a mistake'.
Since then, she said, he has tried to pay back the community for the 'momentary lapse in judgement' by volunteering at Auckland City Mission for over 100 hours.
Advertise with NZME.
Police opposed the defendant's application for a discharge without conviction but were neutral to his permanent name suppression application. The media opposed suppression, noting the futility of trying to contain the already widely distributed video.
The victim, who did not attend the hearing, also opposed the requests. In a written victim impact statement referred to by the judge, the woman said she continues to feel anxiety in public spaces. The incident, she said, triggered 'past trauma of men taking advantage of me'. Now she has trouble trusting people even in a professional environment, she said.
'She said she should not have to live with the violation while you walk away without consequences,' Judge Fraser noted.
But the judge also pointed to defence submissions that the defendant came from a respected family in Sri Lanka, where family honour plays a large part in the culture. He feared emotional rejection, long-term isolation and physical violence if his family were to find out about the case, the court was told.
The judge referred to the defendant's own explanation, that he came across the photo by accident and impulsively decided to send it to himself 'out of foolish curiosity and poor judgment'. The defendant said he is thankful the attempt failed.
'There is absolutely no doubt that you are experiencing remorse,' Judge Fraser said, adding that the defendant has been assessed as having a low likelihood of reoffending.
'The consequences [of name publication] for you are enormous.'
The judge ordered the defendant to pay $1500 in emotional harm reparation to the victim. He acknowledged, however, that the defendant wouldn't have the ability to pay it off until he is able to gain employment again.