Proving causation of transmission (i.e. that A transmitted HIV to B) comes up
in few jurisdictions, mostly where there are statutes that require transmission
for prosecution. Where such proof is required, the full complement of
evidence that could help determine whether the complainant was actually
infected by the defendant is rarely fully investigated by police or examined in
court.

A common misconception – often shared by police, prosecutors, defence and
judges – is that scientific evidence that examines the genetic ‘fingerprint’ of
HIV in both complainant and defendant, known as phylogenetic analysis, can
prove with certainty that the defendant infected the complainant

Proving ‘criminal’ HIV transmission requires the use of a combination of scientific evidence about HIV itself (known as virological evidence), medical records and testimony in order to attempt to reconstruct the fact, timing and direction (i.e., who infected whom) of the HIV transmission event under investigation. It may be difficult to prove any of the three beyond reasonable doubt, particularly if the complainant has never previously taken an HIV test, because there may be plausible alternative explanations for how HIV infection could have occurred.

Here you will find original news and features produced for the HIV Justice Network – as well as stories previously published on the Criminal HIV Transmission blog – that highlight good – and poor – practice when it comes to the criminal justice system’s understanding of scientific tests in order to prove ‘criminal’ HIV transmission.

In the sidebar you will find articles and resources from other sites around the world on this issue.