The Govt manager and the spy cam: Offender loses legal challenge, name suppression scheduled to lift

The man's appeal was heard in the High Court at Auckland in November last year. Three years on from the offending. Photo / File

A Government manager who planted a spy camera in a gym bathroom has lost his appeal, meaning he will not escape conviction and the public will finally learn who he is.

The man captured nearly 40,000 images of unsuspecting men and women in various states of undress.

He was originally granted a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression.

However, police appealed that result on the basis the wrong summary of facts was used at the sentencing, minimising the seriousness of the offending as an isolated incident.

In reality, the offending included four separate dates in November 2017.

One woman had told the court of "feeling sickened" at learning she was filmed naked in a "place where she had expected to be safe".

After the High Court appeal, Justice Simon Moore said the man's crime was "unequivocally serious" and involved "significant premeditation".

Justice Moore deemed the consequences of a conviction would not be disproportionate.

He quashed the original sentence, entered a conviction and also revoked permanent name suppression. The case was due to go back to the District Court for sentencing.

However, it was not the end of the matter. And the man took his plight to the Court of Appeal.

Today, Justice Stephen Kos, Justice Susan Thomas and Justice David Gendall released their ruling on the matter dismissing the man's appeal.

Justice Thomas said the High Court had based its decision on the correct facts.

"It did consider mitigating factors, but concluded they were not significant enough to impact the gravity the offending. We agree with that assessment. The offending was undoubtedly serious."

As serious offending it "should not be hidden" by the lack of a conviction.

Justice Moore had also taken an "orthodox and correct approach" in distinguishing between the consequences of a conviction and those inherent of the offending itself.

The man also does not meet the "extreme hardship" threshold to warrant name suppression.

Furthermore, the principle of open justice clearly favoured publication, the decision said.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the man's name suppression will expire in 10 working days.