Warning: This story contains graphic content.

ST. JOHN’S, N.L.—The sex doll at the heart of a trial in Newfoundland that has made global headlines meets the definition of child pornography, says a forensic psychiatrist.

Dr. Peter Collins testified in provincial court Tuesday in St. John’s that the doll is the size of a prepubescent child without sexually mature characteristics.

Collins said the doll was advertised for sexual use and is anatomically incorrect in that its vaginal opening is large enough for a man’s erect penis.

He said such items appeal to “pedophiliac subculture” and are meant “to be fantasized as a prepubescent child.”

Kenneth Harrisson, a 51-year-old electrician from St. John’s, has pleaded not guilty to charges of possessing child pornography and mailing obscene matter.

He also faces two charges under the federal Customs Act of smuggling and possession of prohibited goods.

The doll was on its way to St. John’s from Japan in 2013 when the Canada Border Services Agency intercepted it.

Key issues include whether the case constitutes child pornography if no actual child was involved.

It also raises the limits of free expression and whether laws have become outmoded by technology such as animated sex acts.

The case has made headlines and stoked legal debate across the country and overseas.

Canada’s Criminal Code says child pornography includes “a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means” that shows explicit sexual activity involving anyone who is, or is depicted as being, under the age of 18.

Such materials are also child porn if they primarily depict, for a sexual purpose, a sexual organ or anal region of anyone under 18.

Collins testified as an expert witness who is frequently consulted by police on such cases. He also quoted research by Michael Seto, a Canadian forensic psychologist who focuses on pedophilia.

Collins said some pedophiles can become “incited” by imagery, such as sex dolls, while others may be satiated or satisfied before committing actual crimes. Outcomes differ according to many factors including stress, Collins testified.

Defence lawyer Bob Buckingham, representing Harrisson, questioned whether Collins based his conclusions on preconceived notions to the exclusion of other possibilities.

“You already had your mind made up, didn’t you?” he asked him at one point.

Collins confirmed under cross-examination that his report on the case did not include specific proportional measurements such as hip or foot size.

Still, Collins repeatedly said he concluded it was a prepubescent doll based on its height of about 120 centimetres, around four feet tall, and a related website that advertised child sex dolls.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“If the doll we have is higher than 120 centimetres, does that call into question your conclusions?” Buckingham asked.

Collins said no, not if it still represents a sexually immature or prepubescent depiction.

The trial is scheduled to continue through Thursday and resume for two days starting April 6.