A man found guilty of trying to film a woman underneath a change room wall at a Canberra Kmart will appeal his conviction in the ACT Supreme Court.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Dane Christian Muench will argue on Monday the magistrate was wrong to find him guilty and will ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the charges against him.
At the heart of the defence case is the possibility Muench was wrongly accused in the minutes after the woman saw the phone pointed at her from underneath the cubicle wall.
Muench was charged over the October 16, 2016, incident at the Tuggeranong Hyperdome after police released surveillance footage of the suspect and Muench was recognised.
Muench did not deny he was in the Kmart changerooms around that time but denied it was him who tried to film the woman getting changed.
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.
The woman had told the court she had entered the change room cubicle to try on some clothes, and that out of the corner of her eye she saw a man walk into the adjoining cubicle.
As she undressed, she saw a black phone pointed at her from under the next cubicle.
She pulled out her own phone and started filming, in footage that was later played to the ACT Magistrates Court when the case was heard last year.
"Hey what are you doing?" the woman is heard on the video. "I've got you on tape."
After she confronted the man she put her clothes back on, exited her cubicle, and went to find staff.
A short while later, Muench exited the change room, where the woman was now standing with staff members.
He angrily denied he had done anything wrong, dumped a pile of clothes, and then left, the court heard.
Muench denies it was him or he was filming the woman under the cubicle door.
The defence argues the woman took some five minutes to leave the cubicle after calling the man out, and that it is possible the real perpetrator left the scene before Muench entered with clothes to try on.
The result was that when Muench eventually exited himself, he was simply assumed to be the offender, the defence argues.
In the documents filed to court by Muench's solicitor Tom Taylor, of McKenna Taylor, Muench argues in part that the verdict of guilty was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence.
His lawyers argue the magistrate erred in finding, on the whole of the evidence, that the only rational inference was that it was Muench who tried to film the woman.
It is further argued that the magistrate erred in finding the woman would have heard any footsteps or opening of a door in the adjoining cubicle.
The appeal is listed for hearing on Monday.
