Davidson was first charged in 2021 after a man in a shopping mall caught him taking an up-skirt photo of his daughter.
Police then examined Davidson’s electronic devices and found more than 600 up-skirt videos and 11,000 images of women taken in various locations. Police were able to identify 53 victims between the ages of 2 and 16 years old and 30 adult victims, while an additional group of about 50 victims could not be identified.
Among the videos confiscated by police were five of Davidson with sanitary items he had taken from public toilets, some of which were at schools where he was employed.
He will be sentenced in September on all charges.
In January, police submitted the footage to the Classification Office, which reviews all content made or shown in New Zealand and prescribes a rating to it to indicate the recommended age of the audience, to determine whether they were objectionable.
The office deemed them R18, meaning they were therefore not illegal to possess.
But police then turned to the Film and Literature Review Board, which deals with objections against rulings made by the Classification Office.
In a recently released decision, the board ruled the videos were objectionable, making Davidson criminally liable for them.
The Classification Office’s said in January the videos did not meet the high standard needed to qualify as objectionable.
“Adults are likely to be repulsed and confronted by the behaviour exhibited in the videos. However, on balance, they are unlikely to be left with a lasting impression as they will generally have the experience and maturity to process that behaviour,” the decision stated.
It described Davidson’s actions as being paraphilic - a sexual attraction or arousal to atypical objects, situations or targets - and that it was “highly demeaning and degrading to anyone who menstruates”.
After the Film and Literature Review Board analysed the videos, it noted the videos evoked a reaction of “primordial disgust” in the viewer.
“Menstruation is a deeply personal and private bodily function. The board considers that most people would view the idea of used menstrual products being fished from bins and disposal units and used for sexual gratification, as abhorrent,” the decision read.
The board went on to rule the videos were “injurious to the public good” and that an age restriction of any kind did not go far enough.
While there was no evidence to suggest Davidson shared the videos with anyone, the board considered they could easily have been disseminated.
It also ruled that the videos served no merit, value or importance in regard to artistic, cultural, social, educational or scientific matters and were purely intended for Davidson’s own sexual gratification.
