The court was not told how the woman found out about the film but heard the discovery of it immediately made her physically sick. She shook uncontrollably and could barely speak.
Longer-term, she suffered stress and anxiety, and could not sleep. It affected all aspects of her life. Her work was so badly disrupted, she had to tell some of her co-workers and managers what had happened.
Going to the police was humiliating. She was usually a private person and this was such a sensitive, personal, matter, she said.
The prosecution process involved meetings at the police station with Stainton, which was traumatising. After the last one, she was inconsolable and could not get out of bed the next day.
"I hit rock bottom after that last meeting. There were days when I didn't see the worth in living through it all anymore and it was a very scary time for me," the woman said.
Although she had a lot of people supporting her, no one knew exactly how she felt. It was isolating, she said.
She did not believe Stainton was remorseful and nothing he could say would convince her, the woman said.
A day after the video was discovered, it was still on Stainton's phone. The police had to delete it.
She constantly feared it was sent or saved elsewhere – where police could not find it – and that one day it might surface again and she would be forced to relive all the trauma, the woman said.
She doubted she could go through it all again.
Just hearing the name William brought it all back.
Stainton, who pleaded guilty to a single charge of making an intimate visual recording, appeared for sentencing in the Whangārei District Court.
The charge is punishable by up to three years in jail.
Determining a sentence starting point, Judge Greg Davis referred to a case involving the discovery by an international student of a camera set up by her host father to film her in the bathroom.
In that case, the High Court upheld a starting point imposed by a district court judge of four months' imprisonment.
Stainton's offending, due to the content of it, was more serious, the judge said.
He set a starting point of six months' imprisonment reducing it by 25 per cent for Stainton's early guilty plea and a further discount for youth.
The remaining term was converted to four months of community detention, with a 7pm to 7am curfew and nine months of supervision.
Stainton was ordered to pay the woman $500 for emotional harm and is forbidden to contact her.
There was also a formal order for the destruction of all copies of the video.
Unlike other sexual offences, the identity of the victim in this charge is not automatically suppressed. The judge ordered it.
Counsel Arthur Fairley said Stainton "deeply regretted" what he did and had done his best to apologise. His remorse also showed in character references provided to the court.
The offending was out of character for Stainton. It was a "very stupid, dumb thing" for him to have done.
Stainton had since returned to living with his parents so was in a supportive, structured environment and was keen to find ongoing work as a builder, Fairley said.
Stainton assured him he had removed all the imagery from his devices, which would hopefully alleviate the victim's concerns, Fairley said.
