Full Breakdown
Newmarket Store Voyeurism Case: Courts Reject Permanent Name Suppression
6/23/2026, 5:02:59 AM
Core Offense and Legal Proceedings
Between June 2023 and October 2024 a man covertly recorded women in a Countdown supermarket in Newmarket, Auckland. He positioned himself above the store’s changing rooms, filmed in public showers in January 2024, and captured three women in a public toilet in April 2024. A woman who saw the offender filming up her skirt reported the incident, prompting police to obtain a search warrant. The warrant uncovered additional images and video on the offender’s cell phone. He pleaded guilty to two representative charges of making intimate visual recordings and was sentenced in a hearing where he expressed remorse.
Timeline of Offenses and Judicial Actions
- June 2023: First covert recordings begin.
- January 2024: Six victims filmed in public showers.
- April 2024: Three victims filmed in a public toilet.
- May 2024: Final covert recordings above changing rooms.
- Mid-2024: Woman reports the offender; police execute search warrant.
- 2024 (date unspecified): Sentencing; Judge Kathryn Maxwell dismisses permanent name suppression.
- March 2024: Offender appeals suppression decision in the High Court; Justice Dani Gardiner hears the case.
- April 2024: Justice Gardiner denies the appeal, upholding public interest in naming the offender.
- May 2024: Offender files a further appeal with the Court of Appeal; name remains suppressed pending outcome.
Scope of the Offending: Victim Count and Evidence
Police identified 62 individual victims, though only three have been publicly named. Evidence includes covert recordings from a hidden position above the changing rooms (13 victims), footage from public showers (six victims), and recordings from a public toilet (three victims).
Official Statements & Judicial Reasoning
Justice Gardiner emphasized that the “offending was serious and prolific, involving a gross invasion of the privacy of 62 individual victims, over nearly 18 months.” The judge found “no evidential basis” to conclude that victims would suffer extreme hardship if the offender were identified, and noted “strong factors” against permanent name suppression. The court also highlighted the public interest in allowing unidentified victims to recognize themselves as victims.
Mark Knoff-Thomas, chief executive of the Newmarket Business Association, said the actions “represent a heinous breach of trust” and that lifting name suppression is “a critical step toward accountability.”
Criticism & Opposition: Defense Arguments
The offender’s lawyer, Daniel Schellenberg, argued that the district court failed to weigh the “extreme financial and emotional hardship” the publication would cause the offender’s wife, mother, and himself. The wife described “her emotional strain and the devastation her husband’s actions have caused her,” citing a seven-day work schedule and a heavy commute. Schellenberg also contended that revealing the offender’s identity would undermine his rehabilitation, which includes sessions with a clinical psychologist.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Public reporting confirms 62 victims, yet only three have been identified, leaving a gap in victim disclosure. The offender’s name remains suppressed pending the Court of Appeal decision, creating uncertainty about the final public record.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The actions of the offender represent a heinous breach of trust and are completely inconsistent with the standards of privacy, integrity and respect that customers have a right to expect when visiting a store.” — Mark Knoff-Thomas, Chief Executive, Newmarket Business Association
- “There is a strong interest in [the man’s] offending being made public so that members of the public can make informed decisions about their interactions with [the man].” — Justice Dani Gardiner
- “The offending was serious and prolific, involving a gross invasion of the privacy of 62 individual victims, over nearly 18 months.” — Justice Dani Gardiner
- “We fully support the lifting of name suppression as a critical step toward accountability and support the growing calls for stronger laws to deter these intrusive acts.” — Mark Knoff-Thomas
- “She describes her emotional strain and the devastation her husband’s actions have caused her.” — Wife of the offender
What’s Next
The offender’s appeal to the Court of Appeal is pending, meaning his identity remains confidential for now. The case has prompted calls from the Newmarket Business Association for stronger legislation to deter similar privacy invasions, and it may influence future judicial assessments of name-suppression requests in sexual-offense cases.
