Lawyers representing a man accused of deliberately infecting seven men with HIV have told jurors the illness is not seriously harmful.
A 43-year-old man (X) is accused of having unprotected sex with young men he met online or at bars in Newcastle without telling them he was HIV positive and while knowing he was infectious.
X, from Washington, denies raping five men and seven counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.
In his closing speech to jurors, his barrister Craig Hassall KC said the condition was “eminently manageable” and “no longer the death sentence” it had once been.
The court has heard X was diagnosed with HIV in August 2010 for which he was prescribed medication to keep the virus at undetectable, or non-infectious, levels.
Prosecutors said X, who liked to be “dominant” sexually, intended to deliberately wreck the lives of the complainants between 2015 and 2023 by not telling them of his diagnosis and knowingly having unprotected sex with them while not taking his medication.
Hassall had previously told jurors X’s sexual preference had been “weaponised” against him.
‘Looking to blame someone’
Resuming his closing speech, which began on 9 February but was paused due to a juror being unavailable, Hassall repeated his plea for the jury to assess the evidence “coolly, fairly and objectivity rather than emotionally”.
He said the prosecution had tried to make out the case was simple but actually it was “complicated”.
He said there were social reasons, such as homophobia and a stigma around HIV, for X’s accusers to “not tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth” about their sexual encounters and how they got the virus.
He said it could be a “coping mechanism” for the men, pointing out messages one of the men had sent another man which initially described HIV as an “occupational hazard” of having unprotected sex with strangers but then later looked for “someone to blame”.
Hassall also said the jury had to seriously consider how much weight to give evidence about conversations which happened many years ago before sexual encounters.
‘Sex with others’
He said the prosecution had claimed X was “targeting young new men to the scene” but that could “not be right”, as several of the men had been introduced to him, or “brought to him”, by other people.
Hassall also disagreed with the prosecution’s assertion that X was deliberately “spiking” his viral load to make himself more infectious, but over the whole period there were times when he was at undetectable levels.
“It is simply not true to say throughout this period of time X knew he had a viral load and was highly infectious,” the barrister said.
Hassall said X, who volunteered for HIV charities, disputed all three elements of deliberately inflicting grievous bodily harm, namely he was the cause of the harm, the harm was serious and that he had intended to do it.
On the issue of cause, Hassall said in most of the cases X was “not the only person” the men were having sexual contact with at the time.
‘Fantastic medical advances’
Turning to harm, Hassall said: “We do not accept each of these complainants has actually been caused really serious bodily harm.”
He said he did not claim any of the men were lying about its impact or “undeserving of sympathy”, but advances in medical science had allowed HIV to “become an eminently manageable condition”.
Hassall said unlike in the 1980s and ’90s, when it was an “incurable fatal disease”, there were now multiple medications that prevented HIV being contracted or, in the event of a diagnosis, meant it could be successfully managed.
“We are not saying it’s a good idea to go out and try and contract HIV,” Hassall said.
“What we are saying is there have been really fantastic medical advances recently which mean it is no longer the death sentence it was back in the 1980s and ’90s,” he said.
The trial continues.
The sexually dominant preferences of a man accused of infecting seven men with HIV has been “weaponised against” him by prosecutors, his barrister has told jurors.
The 43 year-old-man (X), is accused of having unprotected sex with young men he met online or at bars in Newcastle without telling them he was HIV positive and while knowing he was infectious.
X from Washington, denies raping five men and seven counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.
In his closing speech to jurors, X’s barrister Craig Hassall KC said there were “at least two sides to every story”.
The court has heard X was diagnosed with HIV in August 2010 for which he was prescribed medication to keep the virus at undetectable, or non-infectious, levels.
Prosecutors said X, who liked to be “dominant” sexually, intended to deliberately wreck the lives of the complainants between 2015 and 2023 by not telling them of his diagnosis and knowingly having unprotected sex with them while not taking his medication.
‘Societal homophobia exists’
Hassall said jurors may have decided they did “not like X very much” but that was “not important”.
He said what was important was they had to be sure the allegations were proven having considered the evidence in a “cool, fair and objective way” while “putting aside any sympathy, emotion or bias”.
Hassall said the three-month long trial may have been an “education” for the jurors on the gay community and it was important they recognised “societal homophobia still exists”.
It was that homophobia which could lead to a “feeling of shame and a reluctance” for a gay man to be “fully open to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” about themselves and sexual interactions with others, X’s barrister said.
He told jurors there was also a “societal stigma against those living with HIV” that was “as old as HIV itself”, and getting the virus might be “easier to bear” or explain “if you could blame someone else”.
Hassall said the “central pillars” of the prosecution case were built on “weak foundations” of the complainants describing conversations about condoms they had with X many years ago and of which there was no record.
Alluding to an alleged conspiracy concocted by a rival of X’s, Hassall said some of the men may have been “influenced” by the man who had said he was “going to [mess X] up” and that X “deserves lethal injection”.
Hassall said he was not saying the complainants had made a “conscious specific decision to tell direct lies”, but there were “clear and frankly obvious” reasons, such as “shame or embarrassment”, for them to tell a different story to X.
‘Targeted vulnerable young men’
He said the prosecution case against X was “anything but simple” and his preference for being dominant sexually and enjoying “rough sex” had been “weaponised against” him.
Mr Hassall said prosecutors had tried to suggest there was “something wrong or sinister” with X preferring to be the “top”, or penetrative partner, but there were “plenty of people who are absolute fine with being the bottom” and “enjoy rougher or more vigorous sex”.
In reference to scientific analysis that showed all of the complainants had a similar strain of HIV suggesting X might be the cause, Hassall said tests could “exclude” people as sources but “not definitely include” them.
He also said prosecutors claimed X targeted “vulnerable” young men but he could “not have known” they were so.
For example, one of the complainants was 15 at the time but was “lying about his age” on Grindr and voluntarily met up for sex with men, including X, while “expressing not a concern in the world”.
At the end of her closing speech earlier, prosecutor Kama Melly KC told jurors the “volume of the combined voice of the men” who had given “brave, truthful and powerful” evidence was “deafening”.
She said X had “fundamentally altered the path” of lives and had been “subtle and insidious” in his approach.
The prosecutor also said X targeted “vulnerable” but “happy [and] lively young” men.
Jurors have been told by Judge Edward Bindloss they must focus on the evidence and not be sidetracked by sympathy or moral concerns.
The trial, which began in November, continues.
Jurors in the trial of a man accused of deliberately infecting seven men with HIV have been told they must not get sidetracked by sympathy or moral concerns.
Prosecutors say X had sex with younger men he met online or at bars in Newcastle, but did not tell them he was HIV positive, did not use protection and did not take the drugs he should have to make him non-infectious.
X, 43 and from Washington, denies raping five men and seven counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, claiming instead he is the victim of a conspiracy.
Outlining the law and both sides’ arguments to the 12 jurors, Judge Edward Bindloss said they had to reach their verdicts based only on the evidence.
The court has heard X was diagnosed with HIV in August 2010 for which he was prescribed medication to keep the virus at undetectable, or non-infectious, levels.
Prosecutors said he liked to be “dominant” sexually and wanted to pass the illness on.
Over seven days in the witness box, X said he told sexual partners of his diagnosis, took precautions to prevent it spreading and one of his accusers said they wanted to have sex with someone who was HIV positive.
He also said there was a conspiracy against him but he had “no idea” why.
‘Be cool and fair’
After apologising to jurors for delays in the trial, which began in November, and ahead of the prosecution and defence giving their closing speeches, Judge Bindloss gave them his legal directions.
He said it was a “court of law, not of morals”, adding jurors were not there to “judge the moral character” of X, the complainants or witnesses “with regard sexual behaviour or drug use”.
The judge said they should not get “derailed” by moral discussions and neither should they be “sidetracked” by “emotion, sympathy or bias”.
“Seven of the complainants have been infected with HIV, a situation that will inevitably invite sympathy, but you must reach your decision in a cool, fair and objective way,” the judge said.
Outlining the law on inflicting grievous bodily harm, he said prosecutors would have to make the jurors “sure” of three elements for them to find X guilty.
They were that X was the source of the men’s HIV, getting HIV was tantamount to really serious bodily harm and X had intended to infect the complainants – in short, causation, harm and intention.
‘Life expectancy impact’
On causation, the prosecution case was that X was the source with the men’s other sexual partners ruled out, for example because they did not have HIV or had HIV but were undetectable or had a “dissimilar'” strain, the judge said.
The defence would argue some of the complainants had sex with other men who had not been identified and therefore could not be excluded as sources, the judge said.
On harm, the judge said prosecutors would say HIV did equate to really serious bodily harm as it was a condition that reduced life expectancy, increased risk of other diseases, required regular medication which could have side effects and affected a person’s family or social life.
X’s side would say HIV “falls short” of really serious harm as modern drugs made it asymptomatic, the virus could be controlled and “never develop into anything serious” and the men were “young so life expectancy risks may have been improved by the time they reach old age,” the court heard.
On intention, Judge Bindloss said prosecutors would say X knew he was a high risk of transmitting HIV but still had unprotected sex with men without informing them of his condition.
Prosecutors would also allege he did not take his regular medication, missed six-monthly check ups, knew he had a high viral load, lied to partners about being “clean”, chose “young men new to the gay scene” and did not advise them after intercourse to take preventative medication, the court heard.
The defence would say X did take his medication and attended his appointments, was not told by medics he had a high viral load and did tell sexual partners of his HIV status before intercourse, the judge said.
X would also say it was “well known in the community” that he was HIV positive so the men would have known even if he had not told them directly, the court heard.
“The prosecution case is these men were all in the dark, the defence case is they all knew he had HIV and went on to have sex with him knowing the risk,” the judge said.
In relation to the rape charges, jurors would have to be sure X did not “genuinely believe” the complainant was consenting to sex.
The trial continues.
HIV transmission defendant denies intent and says partners knew his status
A man accused of deliberately infecting seven men with HIV has told jurors he had no intention of causing harm.
Prosecutors claim X had sex with men he met at bars in Newcastle or online, but did not tell them he was HIV positive, did not use protection and did not take the drugs he should have to make him non-infectious.
The 43-year old man from Washington, denies raping five men and seven counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.
He told jurors at Newcastle Crown Court any sexual contact was consensual and his sexual partners knew about his medical status.
The court heard he was a “regular on the scene in Newcastle”, a collection of gay bars and pubs known as the Triangle, since he was 18 and had three or four sexual contacts with other men per month.
He was diagnosed with HIV in August 2010 when he was aged about 28 and prescribed with antiretroviral medication to be taken every night before he went to bed, the court heard.
He said there were occasions when he did not take his medication because he missed the “window”, but usually he took it because he was “told to” by doctors and “needed to”.
The court heard his viral load, which determines a person’s infectiousness, fluctuated over the following years.
When asked by his barrister Craig Hassall KC if there was ever a time he “did not want to remain compliant” with his medication, he replied: “No.”
Hassall asked: “Was there ever a time when you deliberately didn’t take your medication to make yourself more infectious?”
He replied: “No.”
HIV charity work
X said the first complainant, who he is accused of raping in 2015 but not of infecting with HIV, at no point said “no” or asked him to stop, and he never had any “concerns” the man was not happy.
He said a condom was used throughout and though the man took several bathroom breaks, he returned to the bed and “continued to play” after each one.
The barrister asked him if he told the man he was HIV positive, to which hel replied: “Yeah of course.”
He said he was smoking a cigarette while standing at the door of the pub where they had met when he told the man of his diagnosis.
X also said he was wearing a shirt for the HIV charity he volunteered at and was holding various pieces of paraphernalia, such as information leaflets and condoms, about the disease at the time.
He said he met the second complainant, who is he accused of raping and inflicting grievous bodily harm upon, in a bar in Newcastle in 2016.
X went to his home with the man to “play” and the man gave no sign he was not content or consenting, the court heard.
He said after some “kissing and mutual groping”, the man said he wanted him to have sex with him but X couldn’t “maintain an erection” as the house was “freezing”.
X said the man asked to “try anyway” but it was “pointless” and they did not have sex.
Asked if he was trying to infect the “cause really serious harm” to him, he replied: “No.”
X also told jurors he began volunteering for a charity offering support to people with HIV, where he acted as a cook.
When that charity collapsed, he and several others set up a successor to keep offering services, he told the court.
The trial, which began in November, continues.
HIV accused claimed he was victim of 'witch hunt'
A man accused of deliberately infecting seven men with HIV told police he was the victim of a “witch hunt”, a court has heard.
Prosecutors have told Newcastle Crown Court he knew he was HIV positive but did not tell sexual partners, did not use protection and did not take the drugs he should have to make him non-infectious.
The 43 year-old man from Washington, denies raping five men and seven counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, with prosecutors alleging he met men online and at bars in Newcastle.
In his police interview, read to jurors, he said he would tell sexual partners of his status at the “first chance”.
An alleged rapist deliberately infected seven young men with HIV, a court has been told.
X, from Donwell in Washington, knew he was HIV positive but did not make other men aware, some of whom he raped, prosecutors told Newcastle Crown Court.
Opening the case to jurors, prosecutor Kama Melly KC said X, who was diagnosed in 2010, “knew precisely what he was doing” and enjoyed dominating and infecting “young and vulnerable” men, some of whom he met in bars in Newcastle.
The 43-year-old denies raping five men and seven counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.
Ms Melly said X “knew very well” he was HIV positive when he had sex with seven men, four of whom he is accused of raping, and “he intended through his actions to transmit that HIV” to them.
She said the “reality was” that none of the men were “made aware” by X he had HIV.
‘Well aware of treatment’
Ms Melly said X would target “young and vulnerable” men and “enjoyed the dominance” and “sex without consent” while keeping his “true HIV status” secret.
She said he “knew precisely what he was doing when he passed this virus on”.
The first complainant alleged he had been repeatedly raped at X’s home in 2015 after the pair met in a bar, the court heard, and reported it to police several weeks later after seeing a post on social media saying his alleged attacker was HIV positive.
The man, who did not contract HIV, later said he did not want to proceed with the prosecution but contacted officers again after hearing X was being investigated for other offences in 2024, Ms Melly said.
The second complainant accused Xl of raping him and giving him HIV in 2016, the court heard, when they went to X’s home after they had been drinking together in a bar in Newcastle.
Ms Melly said X would not dispute having HIV at the relevant times or having sex with some of the men, but would contest the “circumstances of the sexual interactions” and “raise the issue of consent”.
The court heard HIV could be passed on through bodily fluids such as blood, semen and breast milk, but not through people spitting, sneezing, coughing or kissing.
Ms Melly said 95% of HIV positive people in the UK were on “effective treatment” meaning their viral load, the amount of HIV in their system, was so low they were deemed “undetectable” and therefore not infectious.
She said X was “not taking the necessary” and “strict regime” of treatment to remain “undetectable”.
‘Been told of risks’
Ms Melly said tests had been done on the HIV strains found in X and the complainants, a process known as phylogenetic analysis.
She said the test could say with certainty someone had not passed on the relevant strain, but it could not prove a person was the transmitter.
Ms Melly said the analysis showed X could “not be excluded” as the transmitter – the strain found in the complainants being “consistent” with X’s – but the prosecution would “rely on additional factual evidence to make the case” he was “the person responsible for each of the complainants’ HIV infections”.
Ms Melly said since his diagnosis in 2010, healthcare professionals had frequently discussed with him the risks of transmitting the disease, told him of the need to inform sexual partners and advised him about the importance of taking his medications.
They also specifically talked to him about issues, including the legal ramifications, in 2014 after it was alleged he had not told a man he had sex with about his diagnosis, which X denied.
‘They’re telling the truth’
Medical notes showed X telling health staff he was “well aware” of the issues and was being “open with sexual partners” about his status, the court heard.
Ms Melly said while there were periods when X’s viral load was kept suppressed at an “undetectable” level, medial professionals also raised concerns at times that he was not taking his medication and was missing regular appointments for testing.
The court heard X moved between different clinics in Sunderland and Newcastle and would tell staff he was not taking his daily medication due to his “busy lifestyle”.
With regards to the rape allegations, Ms Melly said X took advantage of the men and knew they had not given or were unable to give consent to sex.
She said there were “elements of consistency” in the accounts given by the complainants, adding: “That’s because [they] are telling the truth about how X behaved”.
Ms Melly said people may think they were agreeing to be harmed, for example in sadomasochistic sexual encounters where they were “wanting it to occur”, but legally no one could consent to the level of harm X was accused of inflicting.
The prosecutor also said drugs were available as an “emergency measure” if someone found there was a risk they could have been exposed to the virus, for example because a condom had split during intercourse, but “they really should be taken as soon as possible” and “ideally within 24 hours”.
The trial continues.
