Two women were devastated to discover they had been secretly filmed by a man at his house, one while she slept and the other via a hidden camera in a room where she was staying as a guest.
Jarrod Tehoka Mehlhopt was found with 170 intimate images and 30 videos stored on his cell phone, many of which were taken using a hidden camera installed in his house.
There were likely more images, but Judge Tony Couch did not draw that inference while sentencing Mehlhopt in the Blenheim District Court today on eight charges of making an intimate visual recording, seven of which were representative charges.
He said the offending had caused “immense and ongoing emotional harm” to the women, to the extent it had affected their ability to lead normal lives.
Judge Couch openly disapproved of Mehlhopt’s offer through his lawyer Marcus Zintl to make a $500 emotional harm payment to each victim, saying it had “little to no significance”, and could be seen as “highly offensive”.
“What you have done cannot be measured in money. If I were to make an order of $500 to each [victim] it would more likely cause them further harm,” Judge Couch said.
It was not said in court how the discovery was made but Mehlhopt used his cell phone to record intimate images of the first victim, without her knowledge or consent, including while she slept.
He secretly recorded the second victim at various stages of undress, using a concealed camera placed in the bedroom at the Blenheim property.
Judge Couch said the gravity of the offending was “very serious” and carried a number of aggravating factors.
Then there was the “huge” number of images Mehlhopt kept for an extended period, presumably so he could look at them repeatedly.
Judge Couch said the “gross breach of trust” was a major factor in the seriousness of the offending, as were Mehlhopt’s actions in taking intimate photos of the first victim as she slept.
He regarded the offending against the second victim an even greater breach of trust. He said she was entitled to “complete privacy”, which had been badly breached by Mehlhopt filming her with a hidden camera placed in the bedroom.
He said that demonstrated his actions were clearly pre-meditated.
From a starting point of two years and six months in prison, Mehlhopt was given a discount for his guilty pleas, entered “quite promptly”, to arrive at 10-and-a-half months of home detention.
Judge Couch also factored in Zintl’s submissions around steps taken by Mehlhopt towards rehabilitation, including that he was already seeing a psychologist.
However, Judge Couch rejected any suggestion Mehlhopt was someone with previously good character, largely because he had offended over an extended period.
“There is little or no scope to take character into account.
“You have demonstrated you are not a person of good character,” Judge Couch said.
Neither did he consider Mehlhopt’s efforts to show remorse were convincing.
“You were well aware putting a camera in that second bedroom was wrong but you carried on doing it.
“Overall, I find your remorse unconvincing and too little, too late.”
Judge Couch said in sentencing Mehlhopt to home detention by the “smallest of margins” that it had to reflect the harm done to the victims and to denounce and to deter.
It also had to address the needs of society, which meant Mehlhopt needed to be rehabilitated effectively.
Judge Couch said his initial assessment was that he would be going to prison but two factors tipped the balance, being no previous record for such offending and that Mehlhopt had begun work with a psychologist.
“What you mustn’t underestimate is that this will be no easy sentence.”
Mehlhopt would also be subject to 12 months’ intensive supervision after his sentence of home detention ended.
Name suppression, which has been in place since his arrest, lapsed today but suppression around the victims and any particulars leading to their identification remained in place, Judge Couch said.
