Full Breakdown
Auckland Engineer’s Attempt to Record Sex Worker with Smart Glasses
5/13/2026, 12:37:15 AM
Court Hearing on Name Suppression
In a North Shore District Court hearing, an Auckland software engineer was accused of using Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses to photograph and livestream a sex worker. He pleaded guilty but argued a conviction would end his software career, jeopardise his immigration status and split his family. Lawyer Sam Teppett asked Judge Anna Fitzgibbon to consider the cumulative impact on the defendant and a related person who also sought suppression for “undue hardship.”
Background & Legal Context
A 2025 law bars permanent name suppression for convicted sex offenders unless the victim consents. The judge ruled it did not apply because no conviction was entered. Police made no oral submission on the suppression applications, leaving the decision to weigh a discharge without conviction.
Key Parties
The case involves the unnamed engineer, his lawyer Sam Teppett, Crown prosecutor Bronson Burgess, Judge Anna Fitzgibbon, the victim, Immigration New Zealand, and the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective.
Timeline
Last year: Defendant sentenced after guilty plea; defence sought discharge without conviction.
Yesterday: Suppression hearing held; judge issued ruling.
Official Statements & Responses
The defence highlighted the engineer’s clean record, remorse and donation to the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, arguing a conviction would be disproportionate. The Crown argued employers and immigration officials must know about the conduct, citing pre-meditation and the need to protect sex workers. Judge Fitzgibbon noted mitigating and aggravating factors, describing the act as dangerous and sneaky, but said a conviction would be excessive. She ordered $1,000 reparation to the victim.
Criticism & Opposition
Prosecutor Burgess warned that not convicting would send the wrong safety message to sex workers and that transparency about the offender’s identity is essential. The victim’s impact statement called the engineer “dangerous and sneaky” and demanded accountability.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The employer should know about this offence,” — Bronson Burgess, Crown prosecutor
- “they should be entitled to know who they’re offering services to for their own safety” — Bronson Burgess, Crown prosecutor
- “I believe you are dangerous and sneaky,” — Victim, impact statement
- “Therefore, there was an element of planning, such that you decided to record the interaction so you could view the information later.” — Judge Anna Fitzgibbon
- “I believe you are dangerous and sneaky,” — Judge Anna Fitzgibbon
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Police gave no oral submission on the suppression applications, and the 2025 name-suppression statute was deemed inapplicable, leaving no clear precedent for cases without conviction. No further details were released about the related person seeking suppression.
What’s Next
The ruling may shape future name-suppression applications in similar offences and could prompt Immigration New Zealand to review the engineer’s status. Monitoring of the $1,000 reparation compliance and any subsequent legal challenges is anticipated.
