The HoS reports:

    A former mayoral candidate accused of secretly filming a woman living in a house he owned says he was only doing what any other “red-blooded male” would have done.

Umm, on behalf of other red0blooded males can I say, no yuck.

    Pat Norris, 53, is believed to be the first person charged with publishing material under anti-covert-filming laws brought in about five years ago.

    He faces four charges of publishing an intimate visual recording and one of intentionally making an intimate visual recording.

    The woman, who describes herself as an average Kiwi single mum, said she had no idea she had been filmed until she was confronted with stills, including images of her in bed with a man.

    She said numerous people had viewed the stills and she was not looking forward to reliving the ordeal through court.

    Norris told the Herald On Sunday he printed them because the woman was sleeping with a married man whose wife had a right to see the images, and any other “red-blooded male” would have done the same.

Who appointed Norris Guardian of Morals?

    The woman alleges Norris told her he fitted motion sensors but did not mention cameras.

    She claimed he fitted one in the lounge, one in the kitchen, one in the dining room and one in her bedroom.

    Police told her they were set up in a way that allowed Norris to view the inside of the house in “real time” at “any time”.

    She said it had taken a long time for her to stop feeling like she was being “watched”.

    “What he did was like physical abuse or worse,” she said. “It’s a violation.”

    Norris said he did not make it plain to the woman he had put cameras in the home, but they were there to protect his investment in case it was broken into, not to spy on her.

I call bullshit. There is only one reason you put a hidden camera into a bedroom.