The identity of a man who repeatedly hid a spy camera in an Auckland gym's changing room will be revealed tomorrow, after the Supreme Court refused to hear the man's last-ditch attempt to escape conviction and keep his name secret.
Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King
The man was in a senior role at a government agency when, in November 2017, he put the camera under a sink in a gym at least four times, capturing a naked couple getting into a shower together, as well as four other people naked or partially dressed.
In a judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court declined his application for leave to appeal, bringing the three-and-a-half-year case to an end.
The man's name suppression will lapse at 2pm tomorrow.
The man released a statement via his lawyer apologising to his wife, family, victims, employer and work colleagues, but said everyone made mistakes.
"We are all capable of making mistakes. No one is immune. Unfortunately mine, and at a late stage in my life and professional career were serious and have hurt others."
The man was earning $200,000 at a government agency when he attached velcro under the sink in two changing rooms and then repeatedly visited the gym to stick his camera to the velcro.
One of his victims spotted the camera, and police were called.
Police found footage of his victims but also of the man slipping into the changing rooms to retrieve the camera.
After filming his victims, the man would take his camera to his car, where he would sit watching the videos.
The man pleaded guilty to a representative charge of making an intimate visual recording, and was initially discharged without conviction and given permanent name suppression by District Court Judge Clare Bennett.
Police, RNZ and NZME went to the High Court last year to challenge the permanent name suppression. Police also appealed the discharge without conviction.
In the High Court, Justice Moore found Judge Bennett had consulted an incorrect summary of facts, so thought the man had only put the camera in the changing room once.
Justice Moore said the crime "involved significant premeditation" and it was "unequivocally serious offending".
He quashed the discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression.
The man then went to the Court of Appeal, where again RNZ and NZME opposed name suppression and police opposed name suppression and the discharge without conviction.
The Court of Appeal ruling said any adverse consequences the man might experience would "flow from his offending, not the publication of his name" and said he could be publicly named.
When it came to convicting the man, the ruling said the High Court judge had taken an "orthodox and correct approach in distinguishing between the consequences of a conviction and those of the offending itself".
The man then sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court, which was declined today.