A man found guilty of taking pictures of a woman trying on clothes in a Kmart dressing room has lost an appeal against the finding.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The appeal judge said in a decision published Tuesday that she had reviewed the evidence and did not consider there was reasonable doubt about the guilt of Dane Christian Muench.
Muench was charged over the October 16, 2016, incident at the Tuggeranong Hyperdome after police published surveillance footage of the suspect and Muench was recognised.
The woman alleged that while she was getting changed a person had tried to film her using a mobile phone under the adjoining cubicle wall.
Muench admitted he was in the Kmart change rooms around that time but denied it was him who tried to film the woman.
He suggested that while the woman was putting her clothes back on the real offender had slipped out of the cubicle and he had walked in.
He argued that meant that when he later emerged from the same cubicle and the woman confronted him mistaking him for the person that used the mobile phone.
The Greenway man pleaded not guilty to a charge of attempting to capture intimate data. However, a magistrate found the offences against Muench proved earlier this year.
This week the ACT Supreme Court dismissed the 35 year old's appeal on all grounds.
Associate Justice Verity McWilliam rejected his arguments that the verdict of guilt was unreasonable and that the magistrate had erred in finding the only rational inference was that it had been Muench.
The associate justice said she had reviewed the evidence for herself rather than to identify error.
She did not consider there was reasonable doubt about Muench's guilt, "in the sense that I do not consider there was an alternative rational hypothesis inconsistent with guilt".
"It is a possibility that some other mystery person that no one saw or heard was able to unlock and open a cubicle door of the type seen from the photographs in evidence in a manner that prevented that person’s movements from being detected by the complainant," she said.
"It is also a possibility that the appellant silently and innocently entered the same cubicle, and that these two actions occurred in the space of two to five minutes.
"However, in circumstances where the complainant was specifically listening for any person leaving while she was getting changed for the purpose of identifying the person next door to her, combined with the totality of the evidence outlined ... I consider that possibility to be ‘mere conjecture’, or, as the prosecution submitted, fanciful."
Muench is yet to be sentenced.
