Potentially vulnerable people he cares for, their families and the man’s co-workers will now have no idea of his sexual and criminal behaviour.
The man was granted a discharge without conviction and final name suppression after a successful appeal in the High Court at Dunedin last week.
It came after his employer made it clear he would likely lose his job as a carer if his name was published in relation to the crime.
A District Court judge initially ruled the man’s clients, future employers and the public deserved to know about his offending.
But Justice Rachel Dunningham overturned that decision, ruling that naming and convicting the man would stunt his rehabilitative efforts and affect his mental health.
The defendant earlier admitted doing a sex act in his car near a park in Frasers Rd on February 28 last year.
Two women walking by were disturbed to see this, especially given his proximity to a children’s playground, and reported the incident to police.
District Court Judge Deidre Orchard initially refused both applications in March this year, saying the public and the people in the man’s care had a right to know about the offending.
"Who is to say that [the people he cares for] might not be his next audience once the dust has settled.
"When people work with vulnerable people my view is that the agencies that employ them should be aware of convictions and the circumstances, but also the public."
The District Court heard that when the man was a teenager, he was formally warned by police after exposing himself to a neighbour through his bedroom window.
"These are entrenched behaviours that he has," Judge Orchard said.
"You should’ve got a fright and refrained from the repetition of the behaviour."
She noted the defendant had developed "quite disturbing sexual preoccupations and pastimes", including making his own amateur videos to post online, all while in a supportive long-term relationship.
She had suspicions he was filming himself on this occasion because he was holding his phone, and noted his sexual satisfaction was heightened when seen by others — although accepted he did not intend to be seen by children on this occasion.
"You were basically using other people, complete strangers, who you upset, in your own sexual gratification."
The judge acknowledged if the defendant was named, he would likely lose his job.
"You are very well regarded in your workplace and your employer has remained supportive of you after you have made full disclosures to him."
But she still thought the public and other employers ought to know the man’s name and see the conviction.
"Of course [other employers] would prefer somebody who has the same qualifications and no marks against their character."
Judge Orchard sentenced the man to 100 hours’ community work and 12 months’ supervision.
The defendant’s identity was kept under wraps pending his recent appeal where Justice Dunningham decided the district court was wrong to rule the man should be named and convicted.
She highlighted the main consequence of the defendant losing his job.
In a letter to the court, his employer said he was a valued member of the team: "he builds excellent rapport, is patient and empathetic".
"If there is a conviction and/or cause to be concerned (beyond the information we have been provided), the future of [the defendant’s] employment would be considered," the letter read.
"Likewise, if name suppression is removed, this could put [the organisation] in disrepute and action may be taken as a result."
Justice Dunningham noted if the defendant was police vetted for a future similar job, the fact he was charged would be revealed, but "that is a very different consequence when compared with a conviction".
A report from a sexual violence programme said vulnerable people the defendant worked with had a different profile to the defendant’s victims.
It also described how the defendant’s sexual offending came from isolation, anxiety, and a history of bullying.
If his name was published and he experienced "further social isolation or negative attention" his rehabilitative efforts could be jeopardised.
The report said the harm caused by his sexual behaviour was accidental, and he posed a low risk of reoffending.
Ultimately, the man won his appeal, with Justice Dunningham finding the loss of his job was a significant consequence that warranted his name being suppressed and no conviction being entered.
