Wellington professional escapes conviction for filming colleagues on the toilet

NZ Herald

05-05-2025

In a court decision made in March but only recently released to the Herald, Judge Ian Carter said the offending happened in a Wellington workplace, the name of which is suppressed.
'Sometime between the start of his employment with the particular employer and his finishing in that employment on 22 April last year, he concealed a covert recording device in a workplace unisex toilet cubicle,' Judge Carter said in the decision.
'The camera was concealed on at least two separate occasions. The first date is unknown, and the second date was the day the device was found on 19 April last year.'
The defendant adjusted the device and tested the camera angle to ensure it captured the immediate area around the toilet seat. The device activated when it detected motion or sound and sent footage directly to the defendant's phone.
Investigators were able to retrieve footage of seven of the man's adult colleagues using the toilet. The victims range in age from mid-20s to early 50s, and include six men and one woman.
Judge Carter said he had read the victim impact statements.
'All expressed a range of emotions including embarrassment, anger, shock, betrayal of trust and considerable impact. They felt upset and unsettled and much less trusting than they were before, including in particular when using any toilet or bathroom which is accessible by others, whether in a public space or workplace situation.'
Many of the victims said they now feel paranoid and will check and scan around bathrooms before using them.
'There was undoubtedly a significant and serious impact on them all.'
While not diminishing this impact, Judge Carter said he needed to assess the gravity of the offending and whether the consequences of a conviction might be out of proportion.
He said the man had taken steps since being charged to engage with a counsellor and psychologist, both of whom provided reports to the court.
'Both of those professionals express the opinion that the offending was not sexually motivated. That may at first glance seem surprising as the nature of the offending would suggest to most people that that is the likely motivation,' he said.
The psychologist's report recorded the defendant's explanation was that he felt he was being bullied by a manager.
He was suffering from stress and anxiety, which stemmed from a background of social isolation, and also had depression. The psychologist also diagnosed him with ADHD.
The defendant had explained due to his mental health at the time, he planted the device as a way to try to get dismissed from his job.
'That, at first glance, seems an implausible explanation,' the judge said.
But based on the context in the psychologist's report, Judge Carter said he was persuaded that it was an accurate and honest explanation.
'[The defendant] accepts that it was naïve and foolish to have used that particular method to try and end his employment relationship but in context it does seem likely.'
Judge Carter said the psychologist was also trained in dealing with sexual offenders. Both he and the counsellor expressed a belief there was a low risk of the man reoffending.
The judge also noted there was no evidence the footage was shared with anyone else.
Other factors the judge considered included that he had no previous convictions, had prepared letters of apology to each victim, and that he voluntarily did 233 hours of community work.
He said the primary consequence of a conviction was that the man would lose his career, for which he has almost completed his qualifications.
'I do not need any convincing about that. I think that is inevitable,' he said.
'Here I think the consequences, effectively loss of [the defendant's] career and employment prospects in his chosen field, would be disproportionate to the low to moderate gravity of the offending which I have assessed.'
He said the interests of the defendant outweighed the public interest in him being convicted.
The man had indicated he had been unemployed for some time, but that he had saved enough money to make emotional harm reparations of $100 per victim. The judge felt this was not enough, and ordered the man pay $350 to each victim.
Judge Carter also granted permanent name suppression, saying he had evidence of the man's 'fragile mental health' and noted the discharge without conviction would be undermined if he was to be named publicly.
Police opposed the discharge and name suppression applications.