A victim of a biomedical student who secretly filmed women in public toilets is now fearful of her safety and can no longer use public restrooms. Her experience illustrates the profound personal cost of voyeurism offences that courts must weigh when assessing appropriate punishment.
The woman had entered the public toilets at Chipmunks Playland and Cafe Docklands on 20 February 2025 and noticed another person in an adjoining cubicle. As she used the toilet, she noticed an iPhone being held close to the wall near the cubicle and that it was recording. The woman became scared and panicked at the sight of the recording, leaving the toilets to call security who found Cao in the toilet cubicle.
The 23-year-old was found with more than 100 videos on his phone but authorities are unsure if they're all of the same or different victims, Melbourne Magistrates Court was told on Friday. The volume of material discovered raises concerning questions about the potential scope of offending and whether a single identified victim represents the full scale of harm caused.
Magistrate Michelle Mykytowycz acknowledged the severity of the violation. "Your offending was not of a physical nature but of the most intimate kind in a public toilet," she said. The magistrate also noted that she took into account his guilty plea, youth and that he has no family in Australia, but described the offending as very serious and the complainant was entitled to feel safe.
Yet despite these serious findings, Cao was sentenced to a 12-month adjourned undertaking without conviction where he must be of good behaviour and comply with his previous community corrections order. This outcome means he avoided a criminal conviction that would ordinarily appear on his record.
The sentencing history compounds questions about consistency. The offender had been sentenced twice before receiving a community corrections order in July 2025 on the same matter and May 2025 relating to an incident in October 2024. Under the principle of totality, the magistrate said his charge on Friday should have been bundled with his previous sentencing as it would have been unlikely to have impacted his prior sentence.
In practical terms, this means the court recognised that imposing multiple non-custodial orders for what amounts to a pattern of identical offences over several months created an inconsistency in sentencing. Yet no stricter outcome resulted.
The victim's experience reveals the human cost of this approach. In Australia and overseas, it is generally illegal to film a person in public where there is an expectation of privacy. This includes places such as bathrooms, change rooms and AA meetings. The legislation recognises that being secretly watched or filmed in intimate situations can cause deep humiliation, anxiety and long-term harm, even if no physical contact occurs.
The magistrate found that this victim had suffered lasting consequences. Her statement to the court emphasised that her "sense of safety has been and continues to be affected, impacting her ability to use the restroom in the office and in public." These harms will likely persist far longer than the 12-month period of the adjourned undertaking.
The court was told Cao's phone used in the offending will be returned to him after authorities figure out how to delete all its contents. Notably, he left the court a free man and was bundled away from the chasing media pack.
The case reflects an ongoing tension in the Australian justice system. Courts recognise the serious psychological and dignity-related harms caused by voyeurism offences, yet sentencing outcomes in magistrates courts often remain non-custodial even for repeat offenders. For victims and the broader community, the question remains whether such outcomes adequately reflect both the seriousness of the crime and the need for specific deterrence in cases involving repeated offending patterns.