Last updated 16:22, May 24 2018
PUBLIC DOMAIN PICTURES
Footage of women using the toilet was found on a health professional's tablet after he lost it and it was handed to police.
Footage of women using the toilet was found on a health professional's tablet after he lost it and it was handed to police.
Female colleagues of a health professional who secretly filmed them using the toilet have told him they're "disgusted" and "dehumanised" by his actions.
A 44-year-old man, who has interim name suppression, installed a small camera in a bathroom used by staff, capturing video footage of at least 10 colleagues using the toilet.
A court heard the man's offending only came to light by chance when he lost his tablet computer, and it was recovered by police.
He had earlier pleaded guilty in the Nelson District Court to eight charges of making an intimate visual recording.
At his sentencing on Thursday three victim impact statements were read detailing the emotional and psychological impact the offending had on the man's colleagues.
One woman, whose statement was read on her behalf, said she was "personally disgusted, sick, degraded and vulnerable that my basic right to privacy has been violated."
It had taken her "months" to be able to use the toilets at her place of work again. Another woman said she now had a "tainted view of men and medical professionals".
A health professional who set up a camera in a staff bathroom got video footage of a number of colleagues using the toilet.
A third said she now second-guessed her ability to perceive risk posed by others, and was always looking for "small peep holes" or devices in public toilets.
"That I could have been dehumanised by the offender to such an extent shows me my belief to judge a character is utterly flawed," she said.
All agreed that one of the most troubling aspects of the defendant's action had been his "dragging" the matter through the courts over three years, and his attempts to get name suppression to protect his privacy, when their own privacy had been breached.
The defendant first appeared in court on the charges in early 2015.
One victim said with every delay and appeal in the court process since then, the "carcass" she carried around since the learning of the offending became heavier.
Judge David Ruth said the offending was serious, insidious, persistent, and pre-meditated.
It had been discovered by "mere happenstance", as the man lost his tablet computer which had been recovered by police.
In efforts to find the owner, police examined an SD storage device installed and come across the recordings, which showed him both setting up the secret camera and the victims it had captured.
The judge outlined the timeline since the man was charged – including appeals to both the High Court and the Court of Appeal over the admissibility of the evidence obtained by the police.
"I accept you are entitled of course to challenge the admissibility of evidence, that's part and parcel of our system, and is a device that attempts to make sure only guilty people are convicted," Judge Ruth said.
"But you knew what was on your electronic device, to suggest that you'd forgotten about it or you'd looked at it only once simply defies common sense."
Sentencing judge David Ruth said filming colleagues using a toilet was serious, insidious, persistent, and pre-meditated offending.
Through his lawyer Tony Bamford, the defendant sought a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression, both of which were rejected by the judge.
Bamford submitted the seriousness of the offending was minimised by psychological reports that suggested it had been driven by depression. The defendant could not recall getting any sexual gratification from the recordings.
He pointed to the defendant's recent offer to take part in restorative justice, his offer of emotional harm repayments, and letters of apology to the victims.
He asked the judge to consider both the extreme hardship a conviction could cause, as well as the impact both a conviction and publication of the defendant's name could have on his family.
However, Judge Ruth did not consider the hardship to be beyond the normal consequence of offending.
"[Your family] certainly weren't in the forefront of your mind when you were offending in this terrible way against these unsuspecting women," he said.
He praised the victims who spoke in court as "brave beyond description" and took into account their calls for name suppression to be lifted.
Judge Ruth sentenced the man to seven months' home detention.
He declined permanent name suppression, but an interim suppression order was made to allow the defendant to consider an appeal.