escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Daniel Wilson

Daniel Norman Wilson

Alias

.

Offences

Child pornography - over 240,000 images and 43 video files of pre-pubescent girls (in Christchurch)
Continued to access more child porn while on a "treatment" programme

Victims

.

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1974

Current Location

unknown

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to nine months in November 2005

Background
A former information technology manager found with 240,000 images of underage girls on his computer is behind bars for nine months.

Daniel Norman Wilson volunteered for the Stop programme for sexual offenders, but spoiled his record by accessing more pornography while undertaking the programme, the Christchurch District Court was told. Wilson, 31, a first offender who admitted 37 counts of importing objectionable publications, was jailed for nine months by Christchurch District Court Judge Colin Doherty, who said, in his view, Wilson still posed a risk to the community – justifying a deterrent sentence.

"This type of offending is insidious, easy to do because of access to computers and the web, but has real victims," he said. Over about seven years, Wilson, who had an in-depth knowledge of computers, downloaded 240,000 images and 43 video files, showing pre-pubescent girls in various poses for sexual activity. Wilson had the ability to bypass encryption protection software in order to access paying sites at no charge, the judge said.

"That goes to show me that you were prepared to go to some lengths to access the material. That's because doing so is an addiction for you," he said.

Wilson voluntarily engaged with the Stop programme, but a report showed he had potential to escalate offending beyond just viewing. The report said Wilson had an intellectual appreciation there were victims, but little emotional understanding. It also became obvious Wilson was still accessing pornography during treatment. One of his flatmates had a computer and he accessed sites on that.

"It is clear you were prepared to put yourself at risk by viewing sites that may have led to further temptation," the judge said. Wilson's culpability was high. "You knew exactly what you were doing, and brought down images in bulk and were able to sift through them at will," the judge said. Lawyer Jeff McCall said the large number of images found happened because Wilson had the ability to download entire websites. Wilson readily made full admissions and engaged in the Stop programme soon after being caught. He also made full disclosure to family, friends and his church. His attendance at the programme was generally good, and he had got to the point he did not look at objectionable material. He needed another six months in the programme, was committed to it, and realised the offending had victims. There was no evidence of trading or commercial gain, and a fine was appropriate, McCall said.

Prosecutor Kathryn Dalziel contended jail was necessary, the overriding principle being protection of the community. Wilson had no ability yet to deal with the offending if he had access to a computer, Dalziel said. The judge said until Wilson had more understanding, a decrease in his offending was unlikely.

---

Corrections and Additional Information
We endeavour to make this database as accurate as possible, but we are at the mercy of whatever information we can find in various online and offline archives. We rely on the public - that is, people like you - to fill in the gaps that we cannot. If you wish to submit additional information or a correction to this file CLICK HERE . Privacy: Trust policy is that all sources are treated as strictly confidential unless we are explicitly told otherwise. If you wish to see a file removed from this database certain conditions must be met by the offender set out HERE Note that this does NOT apply for those that are the primary offender in a murder, rape, or any sexual offending involving minors. We do not enter into correspondence regarding the guilt/innocence of offenders. Such correspondence is not responded to, especially if the offender concerned has a number of prior convictions

Back to Top