Neasan McVeigh, 23, can also be named after losing name suppression during sentencing on a charge of publishing an intimate visual recording by showing it to a friend.
McVeigh originally faced three charges – two for making an intimate visual recording on Snapchat and one for publishing the video by showing it to one of the victim’s friends.
He was acquitted on the charges of making the video but found guilty of publishing it when he showed it to another person.
McVeigh reappeared in court recently seeking a discharge without conviction on the remaining charge, along with permanent name suppression, arguing it would affect his future job prospects.
But Judge Stephen Clark dismissed the application, ultimately being "concerned" about McVeigh’s attitude to the whole situation and dubious about whether more people were shown the video.
‘Not an endorsement’
The pair matched on the online dating app Tinder in late July 2023 and met at a Hamilton pub the next night.
The woman had been drinking since mid-afternoon as she and her friends got ready to head to a private party at the pub.
After the function, McVeigh and a friend met the woman and her friend there and had more drinks, including shots, before leaving for his house.
The group watched movies before the woman alleged McVeigh said, "Let’s go to the bedroom".
They started having sex and he grabbed his phone and filmed her, twice.
He said he asked her and she gave her permission but the woman denied that, stating she would never let anyone film her naked.
However, later that day, she began having "flashbacks" of a light, or camera light, being on her and hearing her voice being played back to her.
Concerned, she messaged her two friends in a group chat but was ultimately reassured all would be fine.
That was until the woman and her friend went to a Waipā pub for a party the following week, where McVeigh and his group of friends also turned up.
She claimed one of his friends "screamed my name" and throughout the evening got "weird gestures from him and I felt like they were talking about me".
She left the pub but her friend and McVeigh and his mates went back to his house.
McVeigh and the victim’s friend ended up chatting and he showed her the video, which was still on his camera roll but had been deleted off Snapchat.
In acquitting McVeigh, Judge Clark found in his favour given the woman admitted that her state of intoxication was a nine or nine and a half out of 10.
"My findings in relation to those charges were not an endorsement of Mr McVeigh’s version of events, but rather when considering her evidence, being sure about what she was telling me," the judge said.
‘It’s a charge that carries a stigma'
Prentice said that if his client won his bid for a discharge without conviction, he should also get permanent name suppression.
"His name will stay on the internet forever," he said.
However, the lawyer agreed that if McVeigh lost the bid, his suppression would lift.
Prentice said while his client said the film was made "with consent, on reflection it was still not a good thing to have done".
"It’s a charge which carries a stigma and that’s why the media are here and there was significant commentary on Facebook and a lot of rage about the fact that his name was not printed."
While he had a steady, full-time job with Northpower as a machine operator at the moment, if things changed, a prospective employer may get the wrong idea about his conviction, Prentice said.
"It’s a conviction that carries a stigma of someone who has committed some form of sexual offending.
"And it goes further than that, it does reflect on a person’s judgment.
McVeigh had a previous drink-driving conviction which his lawyer said "does not raise too many concerns" as it was for a 77mg blood level. As he was under 20 at the time, the limit was zero.
"Yes, he’s a young person, and got drunk ... but it does not mean he has an alcohol problem."
He labelled McVeigh’s actions as "a silly judgment call".
"It’s nowhere as serious as publishing the content online or to a whole lot of other people who didn’t know the victim.
"It was her friend and the only positive that can be said."
Police prosecutor Maddison Kingma successfully opposed McVeigh’s application.
She said the consequences of a conviction for McVeigh were "very general and speculative" about the impact on any possible future employment.
She added that McVeigh had not expressed any genuine remorse, while the victim was left haunted by her "traumatic experience forever".
‘His evidence was somewhat self-serving’
The judge confirmed he was suspicious about wider publication of the video – or McVeigh showing it to his friends – but said he couldn’t be sure.
Showing the video to the friend was a breach of trust.
He agreed McVeigh hadn’t shown any real remorse.
"I found Mr McVeigh’s evidence to be somewhat self-serving."
It was also "unusual" that McVeigh had kept the videos on his phone, "in case the cops turned up".
"Especially given this was consensual [sex].
"There were no expressions of regret during the course of the trial," but he accepted McVeigh was now, "with the passage of time", regretful.
Although he was unsure about the accuracy of the victim’s recall, Judge Clark said she "gave evidence in a stoic manner".
As for McVeigh, he had convictions for sustained loss of traction and driving with an excess breath alcohol level in 2021, which made the judge, "a little bit concerned about his attitude to alcohol".
The 22-year-old had offered the victim $1500 in emotional harm reparation.
Judge Clark said while there was no evidence the defendant would lose his Northpower job, he accepted there would be a "stigma" around having such a conviction as well as media attention.
However, he dismissed McVeigh’s application.
"I have concerns about alcohol and about Mr McVeigh’s attitude to all of this.
"I am prepared to enter a conviction and order emotional harm reparation."
Judge Clark ordered that be in the amount of $1500.
By Belinda Feek
