Why I wanted pervert named

A Wairarapa teenager, who wanted her stepfather named after he filmed her from a peephole as she showered, says a judge's decision to grant the man permanent name suppression is not justice.
''I wanted everyone in the community to know what he did and what he's capable of doing,'' the girl told the Times-Age.
The self-employed man, 47, was granted final suppression at the Masterton District Court on Thursday by Judge Bruce Davidson, who said identifying him would be ''wrong'', would identify the victim and would only satisfy ''the prurient interests of the media''.
The stepfather was also sentenced to pay the girl $2000 in emotional harm reparation and $1500 in court costs.
''He pretty much got let off with a slap on the wrist,'' she said. ''It changed my whole life in many ways. I find it hard to trust males, it's affected my confidence and my health, I now suffer depression, I've lost weight. I have lots of stress-related symptoms and anxiety attacks,'' she said.
In 2006, the man waited in a cupboard for the girl, then 13, and filmed her through a peephole for nearly 20 minutes.
''For somebody who has done what he has done, and has not been told that he cannot be around any young girls by himself is appalling,'' she said.
The man admitted to police he had planned the filming and said he had ''always enjoyed a good relationship with the victim and that when she had begun to physically mature he found himself attracted to her''.
The stepfather had begun a relationship with the girl's mother in the late 1990s. The pair later married and had children. Early in 2007, the girl's mother found the DVD and confronted her husband about it. He confessed to filming the girl and left the family home. The man pleaded guilty in July to possession of an intimate visual recording. The girl had no idea the recording existed _ until 2009. She has now seen portions of the DVD and ''finds it difficult to be alone in the bathroom. It's had quite a traumatic effect'', her lawyer said.
The girl said naming and shaming the man would have been justice and the judge had taken away her right to name the man by granting the suppression order.
She said she was unconcerned that identifying the man would have also identified her because those close to her already knew of the incident and ''people can put one and one together anyway''.
''It has not just affected me, it's affected my whole family.''