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.
