Man charged with child porn says he bought sex doll to replace his son

Harrisson ordered “Carol” from a Japanese website in 2013 but the doll was intercepted by the Canadian Border Services Agency on its way into Canada.

The odd and complicated case has been making its way through the court system for years, raising questions about if the child pornography charges could stick given that there was no real child involved.

The 54-year-old Harrisson is charged with possessing child pornography, mailing obscene matter as well as two charges under the federal Customs Act of smuggling and possession of prohibited goods.

Another concern this case deals with freedom of expression.

On Monday, Harrisson told the court that it was not his intent to have sex with the doll. He said that the doll was his way to cope with loneliness that came from losing his son, who died as a six month old.

According to local media reports, the trial was interrupted Friday after Harrisson fainted and was taken away by an ambulance.

Harrisson said Monday that he searched the term “sex doll” on Google and chose the photo of Carol because it showed a “male-like” face that best resembled his son.

The fact that the doll was kneeling in a sexual position was not his reason for purchasing it, according to Harrisson. Harrisson also said that the idea of using the search term “male sex doll” did not cross his mind.

Bill Howse, the Crown Attorney, said that Harrisson’s defense made no sense and asked him to once again explain his rationale.

“I did not order a sex doll of a childlike nature,” Harrisson said. “The purpose I intended it for was to replace my deceased son, period.”

He said he did not purchase a mannequin because he wanted something lifelike. He also did not purchase a baby-sized doll because he wanted something that would look like his son would have in 2013.

Harrison laughed when Crown prosecutor Dana Sullivan asked him why he didn’t just buy a dog for companionship if he was lonely. “A dog is not representative of a human,” he replied. “It’s not human in appearance.”

Peter Collins, a forensic psychologist, testified earlier on in the trial that Carol is the size of a prepubescent child and does not have any sexually mature characteristics.

Canada’s Criminal Code defines child pornography as “a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means” that shows a person who is, or depicted as being, under 18 years old engaged in explicit sexual activity.

The case returns to the court on Tuesday for closing submissions.