While he told the court the primary motivation for the man's behaviour may have been "pleasure", Shaw said the offending was against her privacy.
"You can look at the footage, he's masturbating."
Judge Chris Sygrove asked the prosecution how they could prove he intended to commit that offence, if he did not know he was being filmed.
Without the video, Judge Sygrove noted that it could have occurred without anyone finding out.
Regardless, Shaw said just because she wasn't there, and wouldn't have known about the incident without the camera, it did not mean his actions weren't offending against her privacy.
The accused's lawyer, Shanna Bolland, argued that her client could not intend to assault or offend if he was not aware that he was being recorded.
She said in terms of the law, a person's body and physical integrity was treated differently than a person's home.
Bolland believed there was insufficient evidence that there was an intention to offend any person, whereas masturbating in front of a person would likely cause offence.
The charges relate to alleged incidents last year, and the case will back in court later this year.
