An Auckland software engineer who pressed record on his smart glasses without consent while a sex worker was naked in front of him claims that being identified in relation to his offending would cause him extreme hardship. 

Last year, the man pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to make an intimate visual recording at an Auckland CBD brothel. 

He was granted a discharge without conviction after a judge ruled the consequences of a conviction would be disproportionate to the level of offending. 

Court documents obtained by the Herald show the man’s offending was discovered when the sex worker noticed him touching the upper right side of his glasses and saw a light flick on. 

She immediately took the man’s glasses and told reception staff to call police. 

Police seized the eyewear and confirmed they were Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses, used to take photos, video and livestream. 

In a North Shore District Court hearing yesterday, his lawyer, Sam Teppett, said the man would lose his job if he were named. 

He also referenced social media commentary about the case, and said while traditional media were bound by reporting rules, the same did not apply on social media and sites like Reddit. 

Teppett urged Judge Anna Fitzgibbon to consider his application cumulatively, including the impacts that would flow on to those close to the man. 

The Herald is unable to report other aspects of the application for legal reasons. 

A person connected to the defendant also sought name suppression on the basis that being identified would cause them undue hardship. 

That person’s lawyer, Harry Redwood, said by virtue of these proceedings there was a “tangible risk” to this person’s reputation. 

Redwood submitted the person’s application for name suppression on the grounds of undue hardship related to concerns about the impact on their career and the embarrassment they felt. 

Police did not make an oral submission on the suppression applications. 

While a new law was passed in late 2025 that prevents judges from granting permanent name suppression to anyone convicted of a sex offence unless the victim consents, Judge Fitzgibbon said it did not apply in this case, as no conviction was entered for his offending. 

Conviction ‘simply would not fly’ for his employer 

At the man’s sentencing last year, Teppett argued his client should be granted a discharge without conviction because the consequences of a conviction would outweigh the gravity of the offending. 

Teppett said the court was dealing with his client’s “unsophisticated, amateur attempt to secure the recording”. 

If convicted, the man was likely to lose his job in the software industry and would not be able to get another, Teppett argued. 

A conviction of this nature in the man’s industry “simply wouldn’t fly” with current or future employers. 

Teppett said there would also be immigration consequences for the man and his family that could potentially “tear apart his family unit”. 

He told the court the man had no prior convictions, had shown extraordinary remorse and had donated money to a charity associated with sex workers. 

Police strongly opposed the application for discharge without conviction at the time and said no affidavit from the employer had been provided. 

“The employer should know about this offence,” prosecutor Bronson Burgess said. 

Burgess told the court that Immigration New Zealand should be made aware of the full nature of a person’s history. The agency’s understanding of the defendant would be limited if he was not convicted for the offending. 

Not imposing a conviction would also send the wrong message about safety to sex workers. 

Burgess said the man claimed he had stopped watching pornography and seeing escorts. But if he returned to visiting sex workers, “they should be entitled to know who they’re offering services to for their own safety”. 

In his view, there was a “level of premeditation” to the offending, as the man had taken a shower and put the glasses back on afterwards. 

Victim labels man’s action ‘dangerous and sneaky’ 

Judge Fitzgibbon said at last year’s sentencing hearing that the defendant claimed that pressing the record button was a “spontaneous decision” as he was struggling to maintain an erection. 

She said he stated he made the “stupid decision” to film so he could watch it later. 

“Therefore, there was an element of planning, such that you decided to record the interaction so you could view the information later.” 

This premeditation and the woman’s vulnerability were both aggravating factors, she said. 

The man’s early guilty plea, remorse, willingness to attend restorative justice, donation to the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective and ability to maintain employment were mitigating factors. 

The judge found the consequences of a conviction would be disproportionate to the offending. 

She ordered the man to pay $1000 in reparation to his victim. 

The complainant’s victim impact statement said the man needed to be held to account. 

“I believe you are dangerous and sneaky,” she wrote, noting that women in his workplace and life should know about his actions. 

Where to get help:
If it's an emergency and you feel that you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
If you've ever experienced sexual assault or abuse and need to talk to someone, contact Safe to Talk confidentially, any time 24/7:
• Call 0800 044 334
• Text 4334
• Email [email protected]
• For more info or to web chat visit safetotalk.nz
Alternatively contact your local police station - click here for a list.
• Contact HELP Auckland on 0800 623 1700
If you have been sexually assaulted, remember it's not your fault.

Katie Harris is an Auckland-based journalist who covers issues such as sexual assault, workplace misconduct, media, crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2020.