R v Mortensen [2012] NZHC 2478 (25 September 2012)

Last Updated: 10 October 2012

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

_1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-042-154 [2012] NZHC 2478

QUEEN

v

WILLIAM HERBERT MORTENSEN

Hearing: 25 September 2012

Counsel: M A O'Donoghue with J Webber for Crown

S J Zindel for Prisoner

Sentence: 25 September 2012

_{SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS}

[1] Mr Mortensen, you have pleaded guilty to a number of charges. Two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection;1 one indecent act on a male aged

_{12 to 16;}2 _{four charges of indecent acts on girls aged under 12;}3 _{six charges of}

_{knowingly making an objectionable publication;}4 _{12 charges of knowingly supplying}

1 _{Crimes Act 1961, ss 128 and s 12B.}

2 _{Crimes Act 1961, s 134(3).}

3 _{Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3).}

4 _{Films Videos & Publications Classifications Act 1993, s 124(1).}

R v MORTENSEN HC NEL CRI 2012-042-154 [25 September 2012]

objectionable publications;5 three representative charges of possessing objectionable material;6 three charges of indecency with an animal7 and three charges of theft.8

You appear for sentence today on those charges. The District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you because only the High Court has the ability to impose a sentence of preventive detention.

[2] I am required by the Sentencing Act 2002 to keep in mind a number of purposes and principles in sentencing. In terms of s 7, issues of deterrence, denunciation and the need to hold the offender accountable for the harm done to your victims are prominent considerations in a case of this type. Another essential consideration is the need to assist you in your respective rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

[3] In terms of s 8 principles, I must take into account the gravity of your offending, including your degree of culpability. I must have regard to the seriousness of the types of offences that you have committed by comparison to other types of offending, as indicated by the maximum penalty prescribed. I must also consider the general desirability of consistency with appropriate sentences available. I am also to take into account your personal circumstances. I need to impose by law the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate to your circumstances.

[4] The key issue in sentencing today is whether I should impose an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention, or whether a lengthy finite sentence (which may then be subject to a post-release extended supervision order) will be sufficient to reflect the sentencing principles I have just referred to, and to protect our community.

[5] After consideration of the submissions both written and the oral submissions

_{I have heard this morning, Mr Mortensen, I have reached the conclusion that a}

5 _{Films Videos & Publications Classifications Act 1993, s 124(1).}

6 _{Films Videos & Publications Classifications Act 1993, s 124(1).}

7 _{Crimes Act 1961, s 144.}

8 Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 & 223(d).

sentence of preventive detention is the only one properly available to this Court. I

shall now explain to you my reasons in reaching that conclusion.

Details of offending

[6] First, I consider the details of your offending. The factual basis on which you are sentenced today is contained in the summary of facts. The reports prepared prior to today indicate you dispute some aspects of that summary but Mr Zindel makes little of that today. It is necessary I sentence you on the basis of the summary of facts to which you have pleaded guilty.

[7] The offending that is the subject of that summary, spans the period 2004 to

2012. There are four young victims of your sexual conduct.

Victim A

[8] Victim A was a 15 year old male. You became acquainted with him through his father. Between 10 and 17 November 2011 A ran away from his CYFS caregivers. He spent two nights sleeping in your residence. On 12 November you, the victim and a flatmate were in your lounge. You supplied the victim alcohol and as a result the victim became heavily intoxicated. During the evening you texted the victim indicating to him that you wanted to sleep with him and asking him to come to your bedroom. Once in the bedroom you performed sexual acts on the victim, including fellatio. That is the basis of the first charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. You also committed other indecent acts on the victim, and made him reciprocate. That is the basis of the indecent act charge.

Victim B

[9] Victim B was a girl aged 8 years. You became acquainted with B through B’s

mother. Over time you were entrusted with babysitting the victim. On 28 October

2010, when you were babysitting the victim in your house you instructed her, despite her protests, to undress herself. You took photos of her. You made her pose in sexual positions. These photographs are vile beyond description. They sexualise a

small, vulnerable girl. They present her as if she were some hardened, adult strumpet. These facts form the basis of the charge of indecent act on a girl under 12, and five of the knowingly making objectionable publication charges.

[10] You then proceeded to pry the victim’s legs apart. You put your mouth on her private parts. You asked her to perform an oral sexual act on you, and you took her to your room and asked her if she wanted to have sex with you. She refused to do either. These events are the basis of the second sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection charge.

[11] You uploaded the photographs of B to your computer hard drive. On

14 January 2011 you accessed an internet paedophile website and chat room. This site enables deviants to swap and sell images of child pornography. You traded 12 images of B in exchange for similar images of child sex abuse. That is the basis of the 12 charges of knowingly supplying objectionable publications.

Victim C

[12] Victim C was a girl aged 10 years. She was the neighbour of Victim B. On

9 January 2011 you, B, C and B’s mother went to a local tavern which you were cleaning as part of your employment as a carpet cleaner. Whilst B’s mother was cleaning, you took the two victims into the female toilets under the pretence that you needed their assistance. You then took a series of photographs of the two girls posed together, but still fully clothed. You then gained time with just C. You instructed her to expose her stomach and lower chest and you took further photographs. You then put your hands in her underwear and you touched her bottom. C walked out on you. That is the basis of one of the indecent act charges.

[13] In 2011, whilst cleaning Victim C’s primary school, you stole a class photograph which included C. You placed it on the wall of your bedroom. That is the basis of one of the theft charges.

Victim D

[14] Victim D was another girl, aged 8 years. You met D while mowing her neighbour’s lawn. The meeting progressed to you taking D and her younger brother for walks and ingratiating yourself with her parents. You took her for drives and you bought her food and birthday presents. On one occasion you took her to your home where you took a series of photographs of her. One of the photographs was a close up image of D’s groin area exposed through the open leg of her shorts. This led to another charge of knowingly making objectionable material. On the same day whilst doing up the fly on your pants you deliberately brushed up against D. On a different day whilst climbing out of your van you placed your hand on her thigh and bottom. These led to the two further charges of indecent acts.

Thefts

[15] The further two thefts are unrelated to those victims.

[16] The first occurred between December 2005 and January 2006 when you were house-sitting. You stole 30 photographs from the home, mainly of the couple and their young children. One was of the mother, showing intimate photos of her at 38 weeks pregnant, naked and holding her naked two year old son.

[17] The second theft occurred at an unknown date whilst you were cleaning a home as part of your cleaning business. You removed a school photograph of a 13 year old girl, which you placed on your bedroom wall.

Possession of objectionable material

[18] In terms of the possession of objectionable material charges, the first representative charge relates to the result of search warrants that were executed in January this year. Over 15,000 images were found stored on your computer. They depicted sexualised child nudity, child sexual abuse, paedophilia, rape, and bestiality.

[19] The second representative charge results from various cell phones seized which contained images of bestiality and child sexual abuse. One phone had thirteen such images.

[20] The final representative charge related to another phone which depicted more of the same images.

Indecency with animals

[21] In terms of the indecency with animal charges, the first charge occurred on

1 October 2008 when you used the camera on your phone to video yourself placing your person into the mouth of a dog.

[22] The second charge occurred on 1 April 2010, in the home of one of the customers of your cleaning business. You performed an oral sexual act on their dog and you placed your person in front of the dog’s mouth. You took photographs of yourself doing these acts, which you later downloaded to your computer.

[23] The final charge occurred on 23 January 2011, and involved you performing an oral sexual act on a dog and the dog reciprocating on you. Again, you took photographs of these acts.

Impact of your offending

[24] I turn now to the impact of your paedophile offending. Children, Mr Mortensen, who are the victims of sexual abuse may be affected for the rest of their lives, in their personalities and their subsequent relationships.

[25] I have read victim impact statements of the four victims of your offending, and their relatives. Today I have heard from Victim B’s mother and I have heard her read her victim impact statement. I am grateful to her for coming to Court today and explaining what has happened both to her daughter and to her family.

[26] All four of your victims have had emotions of anger, guilt and fear. They feel ashamed and upset at what has occurred and they feel betrayed as they trusted you. It is fair to say the offending can be said to be affecting their everyday lives. It has affected also their wider families who have to deal with their disturbed children and with their misplaced sense of neglect in allowing their children to be with you. It is as I say, understandable, but it is a misplaced sense of neglect because it is you who has betrayed the trust given to you by their parents, rather than the parents betraying any trust given by their children.

[27] Victim B, in particular is suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Having managed to repress her memory of the things you did to her she then learned that you had posted your appalling photographs of her on the internet. Although the police have removed the images of Victim B from websites they have come across, there is no control as to further distribution of the images by and to other paedophiles on the internet. This is a fact that Victim B will have to live with for the rest of her life. The suggestion that your counsel makes in his written submissions that there may be more pornographic internet images “than grains of sand on a beach” will be of no comfort to Victim B.

[28] More generally I note the wider impact of your offending. In this country alone there are over a million clicks on illegal child sex abuse websites recorded during a two year trial period. The demand for child sexual abuse images results in a continuing cycle of sexual abuse for existing victims and demand for new victims. A victim of sexual abuse, through distribution on the internet is further victimised every time their image is viewed. Your actions have contributed to the further victimisation of these children and has fuelled international demand for such imagery.

Prior offending

[29] I now turn to consider your previous record. It is unfortunately not isolated. In the 1970s you appeared on charges of obscene exposure and lurking. You received convictions for indecent acts in the 1980s. In 1988 you indecently assaulted your neighbour’s daughter, who was a child of similar age to your present

victims. You were imprisoned. In 1993 you received a further prison sentence for an indecent assault on a young boy. In 1997 further historical offending came to light and you were convicted of four more indecent assaults against other children younger than 12 years. As you had recently completed a rehabilitation programme, and the offending was historical, you were given a community sentence of supervision.

Pre-sentence report

[30] The pre-sentence report prepared by the Department of Corrections probation officer first notes you were cautious with disclosing information in the interview because of the prospect of preventive detention.

[31] The report details your early life, describing a generally normal childhood. It appears your father was convicted of a sexual offence, and you query whether your sexual deviances have a genetic component. You have had a previous marriage which ended in 1996. You have few close family members or friends.

[32] You are aged 53 years old. You moved to Nelson in 1997 and you lived there as a self employed cleaner. The report describes you as living a quiet lifestyle, with no indications of drug or alcohol abuse.

[33] The report also notes that you completed the rehabilitation programme for sexual offenders, Kia Marama, in 1995. You were considered to have made progress. You were reported as having an excellent understanding of relapse prevention strategies and of high risk situations for you. However, you were still considered to be medium to high risk after completion of the programme because of your sense of inadequacy with adults and ability and willingness to be sexually aroused by children. You told your probation officer that the learning from the interventions you had received had “faded” in your thinking and that your offending recommenced once you purchased a computer.

[34] Your probation officer assesses you as having low motivation to change. He notes external controls such as public condemnation and custodial sentences have

not acted as adequate deterrents. Importantly, Mr Mortensen, you have chosen not to use the skills you learned in treatment at Kia Marama. Consequently, your risk of reoffending is high.

Section 88 reports

[35] I now turn to the s 88 reports. The first is from Clinical Psychologist, Mr Kris Wilson. Mr Wilson’s report details your early life in more depth than the pre-sentence report. It appears your father ruled with an ‘iron fist’ but that was not unusual in those days. You reported experiencing an attempted sexual assault at age

4 by an unknown male, but you managed to run away before very much happened. The reports detail your school life. It appears you felt bullied and isolated. Again that is hardly unusual.

[36] You identified yourself to Mr Wilson as bi-sexual. You also admitted to having strong sexual attractions to male and female adolescents. The report details that you have always enjoyed children’s company because they do not judge you. From an early age, you began a pattern of exhibitionism and other impersonal abusive sexual practices. Despite maintaining some consensual adult relationships over the years, the report states you have displayed a wide range of deviant sexual interests, both legal and illegal, and have a strong sexual pre-occupation. Known behaviours include bestiality, exposure, sexual violation, obscene phone calls, accessing, making and distributing objectionable images, voyeurism, masturbating in public, cross-dressing, and stealing items for sexual gratification.

[37] The report describes your offending pattern as follows:

Typically, Mr Mortensen demonstrates a pattern whereby increased sexual preoccupation precedes offending and is typically signalled by the increased use of pornography and fantasising. His actual offending then follows a typical pattern. Namely, Mr Mortensen ingratiates himself with the families of the victims and starts to groom his victims. Initial behaviours are seemingly innocent such as giving the victims care and attention, seeking physical closeness, paying compliments and the giving of gifts which serves to solidify emotional connection. When trust is established, Mr Mortensen seeks time alone with the victims and typically begins to escalate his behaviours, for example, suggesting that his victims expose themselves or by exposing himself. He then attempts behaviours such as inappropriate

touching and progresses to suggestion of sexually indecent acts, only stopping when the victim refuses to engage.

[38] In a typical day you will peruse websites for a couple of hours and watch a pornographic DVD per day. You have stolen numerous children’s items for sexual gratification. Over 800 items of children’s clothing were found in your house.

[39] Due to your offending history, the wide range of offences, victims, continued offending over time, your failure to benefit from intensive treatment and supervision, and your preoccupation with deviant sexual interests, Mr Wilson assesses you at a high risk of sexual recidivism upon release.

[40] The second s 88 report is from Ms Joanna Browne, a registered clinical psychologist from the Department of Corrections Psychological Services, Christchurch. That report is consistent with the report from Mr Wilson. Ms Brown is concerned that you lack a full understanding of the effects and consequences of the offending on your victims, especially considering your past treatment in Kia Marama. The report from Ms Browne notes that you made a choice to ignore your previously learnt methods of managing risk.

[41] Ms Browne assesses you to be at a high risk of further sexual offending. You have indicated you are willing to participate in further treatment but Ms Brown states it is uncertain how effective that treatment will be in the long term, given your prior engagement in intensive treatment.

Preventive detention?

Introduction

[42] I now turn to the question of preventive detention. I have already indicated to you that is the sentence which will be imposed on you today.

[43] The object of preventive detention is to protect the community from those who pose a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members.9 Its purpose is not punitive.10 The Act provides three qualifying conditions for a sentence of preventive detention. Conviction of a qualifying sexual offence that you are over 18 years when you committed it and that the Court is satisfied that you are likely to commit another qualifying sexual offence if released at the relevant expiry sentence

date. It is accepted by your counsel that you meet those conditions.

[44] When considering whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention, the court must take into account five statutory considerations prescribed in s 87(4). I now turn my mind to those considerations.

(a) Pattern of serious offending disclosed?

[45] The first is whether a pattern of serious offending is disclosed by the offender’s history. I have no doubt this criteria is met. As already noted you have a number of prior convictions for sexually motivated offending against young children. These now are your first charges of sexual violation. This demonstrates an escalation in your offending. Your convictions began in your teenage years and have carried through. They are also to be seen in the context of a wide range of deviant sexual interests, indicative of strong sexual preoccupation.

[46] It appears that there may have been a short period during and after your imprisonment where, if you are to be believed, you were able to avoid offending. But I note also that you have indicated there is further offending against other victims for which you have not been charged. In addition, Mr Mortensen, your deviance appears compulsive. Having received treatment and counselling, and knowing full well the terrible impact of this sort of behaviour on your victims, you have “drifted” back from passive behaviour to active unlawful exploitation of small

_children.

9 _{Sentencing Act 2002, s 87(1).}

10 R v C [2003] 1 NZLR 30 (CA) at [5].

[47] Specifically, in the current offending, as I have already noted there is a clear pattern of offending in each case whereby you have ingratiated yourself into the personal lives of victims’ families, employing grooming skills to ensure the victims’ trust and compliance.

(b) Seriousness of harm to community caused

[48] The second consideration is the seriousness of the harm to the community caused by the offending. The harm caused to the community by sexual offending against young children is self-evident. I have already described the impact of your offending directly on your victims and relatives, and the wider impact on society. This type of offending also causes fear in the wider community of offenders such as yourself. This is especially so, given your business as a cleaner and the trust the community puts in persons like you to come into ordinary homes while members of the community are not there.

[49] Closely linked with your sexual offending is the distribution of objectionable images on the internet and the impact of this type of offending which is not only on New Zealand society, but society at large. This type of utterly reprehensible, vile conduct must be denounced. It takes advantage of vulnerable children. It facilitates the abuse of other children in other jurisdictions. It provides a catalyst and stimulant for others engaging in this kind of sexual abuse.

(c) Tendency to commit serious offences in the future

[50] The third statutory consideration is of information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future. I have already cited the s 88 reports from Mr Wilson and Ms Browne. These both assess you as at a high risk of reoffending. I accept the conclusions of those experts which are based on risk assessment tools. As noted by Mr Wilson, your offending history, the wide range of offences and victims, your continued offending over time and your preoccupation with deviant sexual interests, indicates a real and present risk of committing serious offences again in the future. Your tendency to commit future serious offences, in my view, is also directly connected to the next consideration.

(d) Efforts to address causes of offending?

[51] The fourth consideration is the absence of, or failure of, efforts by the offender to address the causes of his offending. As I have noted, as a result of your previous offending you attended the Kia Marama Special Treatment Unit for child sex offenders in the mid-1990s. Following release from prison you were also provided with 15 sessions of maintenance treatment with a departmental psychologist. It appears you made some progress through this intervention. You were reported as having developed insight into your offending, and that you had a sound understanding of relapse prevention principles.

[52] What concerns me is your inability to maintain the progress you made during that treatment. You allowed yourself to become complacent over time and to return to victimisation of children. You did so fully aware of the damaging impact of your offending which you had previously learnt. Your actions were not mere slips or spur of the moment offending. It was calculated in the way I have described before.

[53] Both reports are uncertain as to how effective any future treatment will be, especially in the long term. Your pre-sentence report considers you to have low motivation to change. Where there is less confidence in the offender’s likely response to treatment, an indefinite term provides greater rehabilitative incentive and

the safety of lifetime recall.11

[54] I also take into account your lack of insight into your offending. Your reports detail you as having a cognitive distortion, which you would have been made aware of during your intervention. This distortion means you legitimise and rationalise your behaviour on the assumption that children can initiate sexual activity, defusing responsibility to them. That attempt to transfer responsibility to your victims is simply disgraceful.

[55] In my view, the failure of past intervention, and your lack of insight into the offending and the escalation of it to active sexual violation demonstrates an inability

11 R v Bryant CA236/03 16 December 2003 at [23].

to refrain from this type of offending. This informs my conclusion that there is a real risk you will commit similar, serious offences in the future.

(e) Preference for determinate sentence

[56] The fifth consideration is that as a matter of statutory preference a finite and determinate sentence is to be preferred. The s 87 preventive detention regime is an exception to that principle. A lengthy but determinate sentence is preferable if it will provide adequate protection to society.

[57] I do not consider that a lengthy determinate sentence in this case would suffice to protect society. A lengthy finite sentence in some cases is required before preventive detention is imposed to allow an offender to participate in rehabilitation programmes. You have already had an opportunity to undertake intervention, which as I have described has been unsuccessful.

[58] I also must consider the potential availability of an extended supervision order if a finite sentence were imposed.12 In a finely balanced case, the possibility of an extended supervision order may tip the balance against preventive detention.13

However, in my view, you are not a marginal candidate for preventive detention. Finite sentences in the past have not worked.

Conclusion

[59] I accept that your current offending cannot be described as the most serious of its kind, in the sense that others have done things even more gross, even more invasive and even more harmful to their victims. But that point really cannot be taken far. What you have done is certainly of a nature that is very damaging and very disturbing, especially when viewed in context of your prior offending. It also

_{indicates an escalation from your previous level of offending from sexual connection}

12 _{R v Parahi [2005] 3 NZLR 356 (CA).}

13 R v Parahi [2005] 3 NZLR 356 (CA) at [33], [87].

to sexual violation. This case is, not only for that reason, entirely distinguishable

from the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v T.14

[60] After consideration of the five statutory considerations, in my view, the only satisfactory way risk, rehabilitation and safety to the community can be provided for, is if a sentence of preventive detention is imposed. Successful participation in a course of treatment, such that you will no longer pose an undue risk to the safety of the community if released will be determinative of your final release date. So that is an incentive. And the stick that goes with that incentive is that next time you relapse, if there is a next time, you will likely be recalled to spend a further and substantial time in prison.

Finite sentencing approach

[61] I must say something briefly about the finite sentence I would have otherwise imposed. I am required to do this as a matter of standard sentencing principle. I would have adopted a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment on the two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. On the basis of the guideline judgment in R v AM15 you would have fallen within band two for sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection – a term of four to ten years’ imprisonment for cases of “relatively moderate seriousness”. This band encompasses cases where two or three of the factors increasing culpability are present to a moderate degree. There were

four factors present in your case which places you in the mid to higher range of that band.

(a) There was some degree of planning and premeditation, especially in relation to Victim B.

(b) Both victims A and B were vulnerable because of the large disparity in age. Victim A was also vulnerable in the sense he had run away

_{from his caregivers and under the influence of alcohol.}

14 _{R v T CA 125/02, 19 July 2002.}

15 R v AM [2010] NZCA 114

(c) The element of breach of trust: you had assumed responsibility for the victims – Victim B you were babysitting and Victim A had come to stay in your home.

(d) As to the scale of the offending, there were obviously multiple victims. In relation to Victim B there was also degradation with the use of photographing and internet distribution.

[62] To that seven year starting point I would have added an uplift of three years’ imprisonment for the five indecent act charges, the making, possessing and supplying objectionable publications. I note, that on its own the objectionable publication charges could have resulted in a sentence of up to at least three years’ imprisonment. This would be a total start point of 10 years’ imprisonment. To that I would have added a cumulative one year sentence for the indecency with animal charges. So the end result would have been 11 years’ imprisonment.

[63] There would have been a full discount of 25 per cent for your guilty pleas and I acknowledge that you did save your victims further anguish by not making them testify. I do not consider I should give you any further credit for remorse. Your report state any remorse or disappointment reflected by you is largely related to the consequences of the behaviour for yourself rather than real concern for the victims. Your denials and the reports also demonstrate a dismal lack of insight into your offending and the impact upon your victims.

[64] Therefore, I would have imposed a finite sentence of eight years’ 3 months’ imprisonment. I would also have imposed a minimum period of imprisonment upon you of five and a half years.

Sentence

[65] The sentence today of the Court, Mr Mortensen, is as follows. On the two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, you are sentenced to preventive detention.

[66] I am bound in those circumstances to order a minimum period of imprisonment, which must not be less than 5 years. The minimum period must be no longer than the period required to reflect the gravity of the offending or the period required for the purposes of the safety of the community in light of an offender’s age and the risk posed by the offender. I take into account the fact that you are now aged

53 and that risk, as Mr Zindel says, does reduce with age. I have already indicated the minimum period of imprisonment that I would have imposed had I taken a finite sentencing approach of five and a half years. I take the same approach to your sentence of preventive detention. You will serve a minimum term of imprisonment of five and a half years.

[67] On the remaining charges I sentence you as follows:

(a) On the four charges of indecent acts on girls aged under 12 and the one charge of an indecent act on a male aged 12 to 16: three years’ imprisonment.

(b) On the three charges of indecent acts on animals: one year imprisonment.

(c) On the twelve charges of knowingly supplying objectionable publications, three charges of possession of objectionable publications and six charges of knowingly making objectionable material: three years’ imprisonment; and

(d) On the three charges of theft: two months’ imprisonment.

[68] All those sentences are to be served concurrently.

[69] Finally, two last matters. I remind the media and those members of the public present that publication of anything in terms of the victims’ names or which would identify them is prohibited by s 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.

[70] Secondly, Mr Mortensen, I am required by the Sentencing Act to give you a three strikes warning. It is this: if after this warning you commit any serious violent,

including sexual offence, other than murder you will serve the sentence without parole or early release. If you commit murder you will be sentenced to life imprisonment and you may serve that sentence without the possibility of parole.

[71] That is the sentence of this Court. Stand down.

Stephen Kós J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Nelson

Zindells, Nelson for Prisoner