Only three of his victims have been identified by police.
The offending was between June 2023 and October 2024.
The man was eventually caught when a woman noticed him filming up her skirt in a Countdown supermarket.
Police executed a search warrant, which uncovered further pictures and video recordings on the man’s cell phone.
A summary of facts said six of the man’s victims were filmed in public showers in January 2024, after he videoed them over the top of a shower cubicle.
Three female victims were also filmed without their knowledge while using a public toilet in April 2024.
The man secretly recorded 13 other victims while hiding in a covert position above the store’s changing rooms from 2023 to May 2024.
He pleaded guilty to two representative charges of making an intimate visual recording, which carried a maximum sentence of up to three years in jail.
He bowed his head and wept during his sentencing hearing last year. The court heard he was “genuinely remorseful”, had been attending church with his wife and was no longer watching pornographic videos.
Judge Kathryn Maxwell said the “voyeuristic offending” involved a “gross invasion of privacy”, with the unsuspecting victims captured visibly or partially nude in footage.
The judge dismissed the man’s application for permanent name suppression, ruling it did not meet the high bar of extreme hardship.
And given the prolific nature of the offending, she said other victims may come forward if the man’s name was revealed.
The man appealed the name suppression decision during a hearing in March in the High Court at Auckland. Photo / Jason Oxenham
However, the man immediately appealed the decision, which went to a hearing in the High Court at Auckland in March this year before Justice Dani Gardiner.
The man’s lawyer, Daniel Schellenberg, argued the district court judge failed to give sufficient weight to the impact of publication on the man’s victims, his wife, his mother and himself.
The wife submitted that publication of her husband’s name would cause “extreme financial and emotional hardship” on her and her family.
The wife described the physical strain she was under, working seven days a week with a heavy commute.
“She describes her emotional strain and the devastation her husband’s actions have caused her.”
Schellenberg also claimed the man’s mother would suffer extreme hardship should her son be identified. She feared “social isolation” from her communities and reputational damage to her and her family.
It was submitted that the man’s own rehabilitation efforts – which included sessions with a clinical psychologist to address the “drivers of his offending” – would be set back should his name be published.
However, Justice Gardiner found the impacts on the man and his wife did not reach the required threshold.
While sympathetic to the wife’s situation, the judge said the outcomes she described were natural consequences of her husband’s offending.
The judge found there was “no evidential basis” to conclude the man’s victims would suffer extreme hardship if he was identified.
Nor was the threshold reached for the man’s mother.
The judge said there were “strong factors” counting against permanent name suppression.
“The offending was serious and prolific, involving a gross invasion of the privacy of 62 individual victims, over nearly 18 months.”
Secondly, naming the man provided the opportunity for 59 unidentified women to realise they were victims.
“There is a strong interest in [the man’s] offending being made public so that members of the public can make informed decisions about their interactions with [the man].”
Justice Gardiner ruled the public interest should prevail and denied the man’s appeal.
However, the Herald learned yesterday he has now filed a further appeal with the Court of Appeal, therefore his identity still cannot be revealed.
Newmarket Business Association chief executive Mark Knoff-Thomas acknowledged the distress this offending had caused and extended his sympathy to victims.
“The actions of the offender represent a heinous breach of trust and are completely inconsistent with the standards of privacy, integrity and respect that customers have a right to expect when visiting a store.”
Incidents of this nature were extremely rare, Knoff-Thomas said.
Retailers worked hard to maintain safe, welcoming environments, and the business association had invested heavily in its own security team to protect shoppers.
“We fully support the lifting of name suppression as a critical step toward accountability and support the growing calls for stronger laws to deter these intrusive acts.”
Lane Nichols is Auckland Desk Editor and a senior journalist for the New Zealand Herald with more than 20 years’ experience in the industry.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.