Norway: First gay man to be prosecuted goes public, makes a real difference (corrected)

Correction: Louis Gay tells me that he is not the first gay man to be prosecuted in Norway.

I am the first one to be prosecuted for practicing “safer sex” (oral sex, only. with no condom and no contact with sperm or precum), without transmitting any virus!

Original post: Yesterday, Bent Høie (Conservative), the leader of the Standing Committee on Health and Care Services, raised the issue of HIV in the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget). He was concerned about the rise in new diagnoses in the country, and discussed increases in unprotected sex amongst gay men and other men who have sex with men, as well as lack of knowledge of HIV and HIV-related stigma within broader Norwegian society.

Notably, he linked these concerns with Section 155 of the Norwegian Penal Code. This infectious disease law enacted in 1902 is known as the ‘HIV paragraph’ since it has only ever been used to prosecute sexual HIV exposure or transmission. By placing the burden on HIV-positive individuals to both disclose HIV status and insist on condom use, the law essentially criminalises all unprotected sex by HIV-positive individuals even if their partner has been informed of their status, and consents. There is no distinction between penalties for HIV exposure or transmission. Both “willful” and “negligent” exposure and transmission are liable to prosecution, with a maximum prison sentence of six years for “willful” exposure or transmission and three years for “negligent” exposure or transmission.

The law is currently in the process of being revised by the so-called Syse-committee (named after its chair, Professor Syse but officially titled The Norwegian Law Commission on penal code and communicable diseases hazardous to public health), but at the moment, the current law stands.  At least seventeen individuals have been prosecuted since 1999 – and until this year all prosecutions were as a result of heterosexual sex despite the fact that most HIV transmission in Norway is the result of sex between men.

Earlier this year, Norwegian prosecutors decided to prosecute the first gay man under this draconian law. Although transmission had been alleged, phylogenetic analysis ruled out Louis Gay’s virus as the source of the complainant’s infection. Still, he is being prosecuted for placing another person at risk despite the only possible risk being unprotected oral sex, and despite Louis disclosing his HIV-positive status prior to any sex (which the complainant denies).

Louis decided to go public in November 2011 during the initial police investigation. Since then he has given interviews to some of the largest circulation newspapers and magazine in Norway, as well as to national TV and radio. I had the pleasure of meeting Louis in Oslo in February when he addressed the civil society caucus that produced the Oslo Declaration.

As well as his own blog, Louis now also blogs about his experience for POZ.com.  In his second post he notes that

I chose to go public before any final decision was made from the State attorney office, with the chance of provoking them to prosecute me because they don’t want to risk being criticized by media of giving in to pressure. This is fine with me.  Like I’ve stated before I want to have my case tried before a court. Anyway! Now we all have to wait until the trial before we get any further answers about my case. In the meantime the discussion whether we should have a law like this (and using it like in my case) is protecting the society from more infections or just making it worse, continues.

So, yesterday, Louis’s brave stand paid off.  Conservitive MP Bent Høie, the leader of the Standing Committee on Health and Care Services, mentioned Louis’ case in Stortinget.

Then it is a paradox that the social-liberal Norway still has an HIV-paragraph that is criminalizing HIV-positive people’s sexuality. This has now been brought to a head by the public prosecutor who has brought charges against HIV-positive Louis Gay, who has not infected any other person and who conducted what we call “safer sex”, which in reality is the health authorities’ recommendations. I am aware that Syse-committee is now working on this issue, but it is still necessary to highlight this in this debate, because current criminal law works against prevention strategy and stigmatize HIV-positive people. I hope that today’s debate could be the start of that we again have a strong political commitment to reducing new infections of HIV and to improve the lives of those who are HIV-positive – which in reality are two sides of the same coin.”

(Unofficial translation by Louis Gay)

I’m so impressed with Louis’s courage and determination, and I think that he actually might just be making a difference by going public.  If you support Louis, let him know by leaving a comment here, or on his own blog, or at POZ.com.

International civil society experts launch the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation

A group of 20 expert individuals and organisations from civil society around the world working to end inappropriate criminal prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential exposure and non-intentional transmission from around the world came together in Oslo, Norway on 13 February 2012 to create the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation.

The Declaration provides a clear roadmap for policymakers and criminal justice system actors to ensure a linked, cohesive, evidence-informed approach to produce a restrained, proportionate and appropriate use of the criminal law, if any, to cases of HIV non-disclosure, potential exposure and non-intentional transmission.

It is a direct response to the increasing numbers of people living with HIV who are being arrested, prosecuted and convicted and the rapid rise in the number of countries enforcing, enacting or proposing HIV-specific legislation to enable these prosecutions. This, despite a growing body of evidence suggesting that the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, potential exposure and non-intentional transmission is doing more harm than good in terms of its impact on public health and human rights.

The civil society meeting took place on the eve of the global High Level Policy Consultation on the Science and Law of the Criminalisation of HIV Non-disclosure, Exposure and Transmission, convened by the Government of Norway and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). The objective of the High Level Policy Consultation was to provide a global forum in which policymakers and other concerned stakeholders could consider their current laws and policies regarding the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission in light of the most recent and relevant scientific, medical, public health and legal data.

Although the Oslo Declaration is not an official High Level Policy Consultation document, it supports the objective of the meeting, and encourages policymakers to review their own laws and policies, and to take any and all steps necessary to achieve the best possible outcomes in terms of justice and protection of public health in order to support effective national responses to HIV and uphold international human rights obligations.

The Declaration’s creation is led by, and includes, people living with HIV, including survivors of HIV criminalisation, and supported by committed HIV advocates from all over the world. Their expertise covers medical, social, ethical, political, human rights and judicial issues relating to HIV and the criminal law.

The Oslo Declaration, the full version of which can be downloaded here (and which includes full references to support the statements), consists of the following 10 points:

1.    A growing body of evidence suggests that the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, potential exposure and non-intentional transmission is doing more harm than good in terms of its impact on public health and human rights.

2.    A better alternative to the use of the criminal law are measures that create an environment that enables people to seek testing, support and timely treatment, and to safely disclose their HIV status.

3.    Although there may be a limited role for criminal law in rare cases in which people transmit HIV with malicious intent, we prefer to see people living with HIV supported and empowered from the moment of diagnosis, so that even these rare cases may be prevented. This requires a non-punitive, non-criminal HIV prevention approach centred within communities, where expertise about, and understanding of, HIV issues is best found.

4.    Existing HIV-specific criminal laws should be repealed, in accordance with UNAIDS recommendations.  If, following a thorough evidence-informed national review, HIV-related prosecutions are still deemed to be necessary they should be based on principles of proportionality, foreseeability, intent, causality and non-discrimination; informed by the most-up-to-date HIV-related science and medical information; harm-based, rather than risk-of-harm based; and be consistent with both public health goals and international human rights obligations.

5.    Where the general law can be, or is being, used for HIV-related prosecutions, the exact nature of the rights and responsibilities of people living with HIV under the law should be clarified, ideally through prosecutorial and police guidelines, produced in consultation with all key stakeholders, to ensure that police investigations are appropriate and to ensure that people with HIV have adequate access to justice.

We respectfully ask Ministries of Health and Justice and other relevant policymakers and criminal justice system actors to also take into account the following in any consideration about whether or not to use criminal law in HIV-related cases:

6.    HIV epidemics are driven by undiagnosed HIV infections, not by people who know their HIV-positive status.  Unprotected sex includes risking many possible eventualities – positive and negative – including the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections such as HIV. Due to the high number of undiagnosed infections, relying on disclosure to protect oneself – and prosecuting people for non-disclosure – can and does lead to a false sense of security.

7.    HIV is just one of many sexually transmitted or communicable diseases that can cause long-term harm.  Singling out HIV with specific laws or prosecutions further stigmatises people living with and affected by HIV. HIV-related stigma is the greatest barrier to testing, treatment uptake, disclosure and a country’s success in “getting to zero new infections, AIDS-related deaths and zero discrimination”.

8.    Criminal laws do not change behaviour rooted in complex social issues, especially behaviour that is based on desire and impacted by HIV-related stigma.  Such behaviour is changed by counselling and support for people living with HIV that aims to achieve health, dignity and empowerment.

9.    Neither the criminal justice system nor the media are currently well-equipped to deal with HIV-related criminal cases.  Relevant authorities should ensure adequate HIV-related training for police, prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges, juries and the media.

10.    Once a person’s HIV status has been involuntarily disclosed in the media, it will always be available through an internet search. People accused of HIV-related ‘crimes’ for which they are not (or should not be found) guilty have a right to privacy. There is no public health benefit in identifying such individuals in the media; if previous partners need to be informed for public health purposes, ethical and confidential partner notification protocols should be followed.

The 20 original endorsing individuals/organisations are (in alphabetial order)

AIDS Fondet, Denmark

AIDS Fonds, Netherlands

AIDS & Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA), Namibia

Edwin J Bernard, HIV Justice Network, UK/Germany

Center for HIV Law and Policy, United States

Kim Fangen, HIV Manifesto, Norway

Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+),Netherlands

Groupe sida Genève, Switzerland

HIV Finland, Finland

HIV Nordic, Nordic countries

HIV Norway, Norway

HIV Sweden,Sweden

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), United Kingdom

Ralf Jürgens, Consultant, HIV/AIDS, health, policy and human rights, Canada

Sean Strub, SERO Project, United States

Robert Suttle, SERO Project, United States

Swedish Association for Sexuality Education, (RFSU), Sweden

Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL), Sweden

Terrence Higgins Trust, (THT), United Kingdom

Matthew Weait, Professor of Law and Policy, United Kingdom

To find out more or to sign on to the Oslo Declaration please visit: hivjustice.net/oslo.

Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation (HJN, 2012)

Advocates working to end inappropriate criminal prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential exposure and non-intentional transmission from around the world explain why they support the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation.

Video produced for the HIV Justice Network by Nick Feustel, georgetown media.

The Impact of Legalizing Stigma (In The Life Media, US, 2011)

In The Life’s 2011 report, Legalizing Stigma, was the first on a national US TV channel (PBS) to look at the issue of HIV criminalization from the perspective of people targeted by criminal laws. The segment led to public education efforts, beginning with the first ever Congressional Briefing on this issue.

Canada: Urgent sign on statement – ask Supreme Court to stop inappropriate criminalisation of people with HIV

On February 8, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear two landmark cases on the issue of criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure in R v. Mabior and R v. DC. The Court’s decisions in these two appeal cases will have profound implications not only for people living with HIV, but also for Canadian public health, police practice and the criminal justice system.

There has been a marked increase in the frequency and severity of criminal charges for HIV non-disclosure in Canada where more than 130 people living with HIV have been charged in less than 15 years.  This includes numerous cases in which their activity posed no significant risk of HIV transmission. Simply put, this is a miscarriage of justice.

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network is calling for signatories from international organisations and professionals working on issues related to HIV and public health and/or law to endorse the following statement by Wednesday, Feb 1st at 5:00 p.m. EST. 

IN ADVANCE OF LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASE, SUPPORTERS WORLDWIDE CALL ON CANADA TO STOP CRIMINALIZING PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV

Monday, February 6, 2012 – Canadian criminal law requires people living with HIV to disclose their status before engaging in behaviour that involves a “significant risk” of transmitting the virus. Yet people have been charged, and convicted for not disclosing their status, even though their activity did not pose a significant risk of HIV transmission. This is a miscarriage of justice. Further, it has contributed to a climate marked by anxiety, fear, stigma and misinformation that undermines HIV counselling, education and prevention efforts. This puts all Canadians at greater risk.

On February 8, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear two landmark cases on this important issue. We, the undersigned, respectfully ask that the Court  use this opportunity to explicitly reconfirm that people living with HIV are not criminals in cases where the threshold of significant risk is not met – including cases where condoms are used or the HIV positive person was being successfully treated with antiretroviral drugs. We ask that the Court instruct lower courts that significant risk must be determined on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, not on assumptions, prejudice or fear.

Finally, we call on the provincial and territorial Attorneys General to follow suit and adopt guidelines to limit prosecutions in cases of HIV non-disclosure. These prosecutions are not helpful in putting an end to this epidemic, and the radical over-extension of the criminal law is counter-productive and damaging.

Please send your signature as you would like it to appear on the signatory list – including your name, organisation, title and geographic location – to info@aidslaw.ca.  If your organisation will sign on in full, please indicate that as well and include the French translation of your organisation’s name if available.

If you are an individual without an organisational affiliation or professional designation and you would like to also endorse this statement please do so to the email address above.

For more information on criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure in Canada, please visit http://www.aidslaw.ca/stopcriminalization.

————————

HIV is Not a Crime

(8 min, Zero, USA, 2012)

This short film is part of Sero’s ongoing documentation of the experiences of people with HIV who have been prosecuted for “HIV crimes”.  To see a growing collection of individual interviews please visit Sero’s video page.

Film by Sean Strub/Sero • Edited by Leo Herrera/HomoChic

Sweden: Campaign to change draconian, punitive policies for PLHIV aiming for Government review

In Sweden, the Communicable Diseases Act requires people with diagnosed HIV to disclose in any situation where someone might be placed at risk and to also practise safer sex (which, in Sweden, means using condoms – the impact of treatment on viral load and infectiousness is not yet considered to be part of the safer sex armamentarium.)

But in Sweden you’re damned if you do (disclose) and damned if you don’t because Sweden is one of several countries in western Europe – including Austria, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland – where people with HIV can be (and are) prosecuted for having consensual unprotected sex even when there was prior disclosure of HIV-positive status and agreement of the risk by the HIV-negative partner. Sweden uses the general criminal law for these prosecutions of which there have been at least 40 – out of an HIV population of around 5,000.

And if you think the Swedes aren’t being overly harsh, then watch the harrowing documentary, ‘How Could She?’ about a young woman, Lillemore, who was in such denial that she did not tell anyone that she was HIV-positive (including the doctors who delivered her two children). Even though both children were born HIV-free, and no-one was harmed by her non-disclosure, following the break-up of her marriage, her ex-husband reported her to the authorities and she was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison.

Fortunately, most of these countries with overly-draconian policies towards people with HIV are well advanced in the process of examining (and hopefully, changing for the better) such laws and policies.

Norway has set up a special committee to examine whether its current law should be rewritten or abolished: its recommendations are due in May.

Switzerland is currently revising its Law on Epidemics, to be enacted later this year, and, according to my sources, the latest version appears to be mostly consistent with UNAIDS’ recommendations.

In 2010, Austria’s Ministry of Justice conceded that an undetectable viral load is considered a valid defence, even if they say individual judges can ignore their recommendation, although much more could still be done to remove the legal onus for HIV prevention on people with HIV.

And Finland has established an expert group on HIV/AIDS within the Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare with the aim to ensure legislative reform, and address laws and polices that reinforce stigma and discrimination.

But Sweden – which has the most HIV-related prosecutions per capita of people with HIV in Europe (and probably the world) and that’s not including the 100+ more people with HIV who have been forcibly detained and isolated under the Communicable Diseases Act – is lagging behind, and continues to enforce its ‘human rights-unfriendly’ policies.

Fortunately, civil society is fighting back. In 2010, HIV-Sweden, RFSU (the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education) and RFSL (the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights) began a three-year campaign to raise awareness and advocate against Sweden’s over-punitive HIV-related policies.

A recent conference held just before World AIDS Day put together by the campaign and attended by police, prosecutors and politicians highlighted the many human rights concerns over Sweden’s current laws and policies. I was honoured to be one of only two non-Swedes to speak at the meeting (which was held mainly in Swedish – so a big thank you to Elizabeth, my personal “whisper” translator) – you can see the agenda and download a copy of my presentation here.

Download Google translated version of full article here

The meeting and associated campaign received a lot of press coverage, including the front page of the biggest circulation morning paper in Sweden on World AIDS Day.

Download ‘HIV, Crime and Punishment’

At the meeting, HIV Sweden, RFSL and RFSU launched an important new manifesto, ‘HIV, Crime and Punishment‘ that clearly explains what the problems are for people with HIV (and public health) in Sweden and asks for three actions from the Swedish Government:

  • A review of Swedish law, including the Communicable Disease Act as well as the application of the criminal law to HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission.
  • An endorsement by Sweden of the 2008 UNAIDS Policy Brief on the criminalisation of HIV transmission, which says that criminal prosecutions should be limited to unusually egregious cases where someone acted with malicious intent to transmit HIV, and succeeded in doing so.
  • A renewed, clear focus of Sweden’s National HIV Policy on a human rights-based approach to HIV prevention, care, support and treatment, and sex education. 

Let’s hope that Sweden’s policymakers take heed. After all, how can a country which supports UNAIDS’ global efforts, and is perceived to be a global champion for human rights around the world treat people with HIV in its own country as second class citizens?

Don’t think Sweden is that bad?  Check out the 2005 case of Enhorn v  Sweden at the European Court of Human Rights which found that Sweden had unlawfully isolated a man with HIV for a total of seven years, a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, ‘right to liberty and security of person’.

‘HIV is not a crime’ by Sean Strub

Regular readers may be familiar with the case of Nick Rhoades from Iowa, who was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to 25 years in prison because he didn’t disclose he was HIV-positive during a one-night stand with another man, despite using condoms and having an undetectable viral load.  Following intervention from human rights groups and HIV advocates, Nick’s 25 year sentence was eventually suspended, but he remains on parole and on the sex offenders list.

Nick is one of three courageous individuals who appear in the trailer for POZ Magazine founder, Sean Strub’s, ongoing documentary project ‘HIV is not a crime‘. Sean’s film will shed light on laws and prosecutions which treat people living with HIV as second-class citizens (Sean’s term is “viral underclass”) and which are informed by stigma, not science.

Sean and I share a common understanding that, especially in the United States, but not exclusively so, HIV criminalisation is having a serious negative impact on both human rights and public health. The high number of cases in the United States is primarily because many states are still enforcing outdated HIV-specific laws many of which were drafted earlier in the AIDS epidemic when HIV-related life expectancy was poor.  Reflecting moral panic and poor understanding of HIV transmission risks, their impact is still very much felt today, as Sean’s film will show.

Sean’s documentary project could not have come at a more crucial moment, as efforts are underway on a federal level in the United States (and also on a state level including in Iowa) to modernise (or, ideally, totally repeal) these draconian laws. By focusing on the impact these laws have had on people who are often erroneously characterised by such laws – and the media – as vectors of the HIV epidemic, and even sometimes as “monsters”, and showing their vulnerability and humanity, Sean’s film should help explain in very personal and human terms why these laws are wrong and why they should be repealed.

Sean is looking for funding to complete the documentary (funders, please note!) and he also tells me in an email

I’m looking for additional people to interview, including those who have been prosecuted or are facing prosecution, as well as accusers, people who filed charges or considered filed charges and others.  To date I have only interviewed Americans, but I am looking for people with criminalization experiences in other countries as well.

Next week, Sean and I (along with Nick and fellow documentary interviewee, Robert Suttle) will be attending the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board’s thematic on HIV and enabling legal environments in Geneva and then will be briefly in London on Friday 16th.  If you have a story to tell and will be in Geneva or London next week (or indeed if you are living anywhere else in the world, bearing in mind that Sean is based in the United States) please contact Sean or leave a comment below (I moderate all comments before they are published and so this is simply a way to get in touch with me – I will forward messages to Sean).

Canada: Urgent – support the call for prosecutorial guidelines in Ontario

Canada is facing its most critical point in the history of criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure since the Supreme Court’s 1998 Cuerrier decision which found that not disclosing a known HIV-positive status prior to sex that poses a “significant risk” of HIV transmission negates the other person’s consent, rendering it, in effect, a sexual assault.

In February 2012, the Supreme Court will hear two cases – Mabior and ‘DC’ – that will re-examine whether Cuerrier remains valid in the light of inconsistent lower court decisions regarding what constitutes a “significant risk” of HIV transmission in the context of sexual transmission, especially when the person with HIV wears a condom and/or has an undetectable viral load due to effective antiretroviral therapy.

The main thrust of the arguments from both sides is that the “significant risk” test is unfair and should be reassessed.  However, Manitoba’s Attorney General (who is appealing the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s decision to partially acquit Mr Mabior due to his using a condom or due to his undetectable viral load when not using a condom) is arguing in its appellants factum that the only fair legal test is whether or not a person with HIV disclosed before any kind of sexual contact, because figuring out whether the risk at the time was significant enough is too complicated. It also argues that such non-disclosure should be charged as aggravated sexual assault, which carries a maximum 14 year sentence for each episode of unprotected sex without disclosure.

Lindsay Sinese, in excellent recent blog post from The Court, examining both Mabior and DC as they head to the Supreme Court, highlights what is already problematic about attempting to prove non-disclosure in cases that are often based on he said/(s)he said testimony.

In the jurisprudence surrounding HIV criminalization, th[e DC] case reads like frustrating déja vu, exhibiting several characteristics common to many of the more than 130 people living with HIV who have been subject to criminal charges. Namely, the parties rarely agree on the facts of the case, particularly on whether or not the sexual intercourse in question was protected, how many times it occurred and under what circumstances. These critical facts obviously present significant obstacles with regards to proof and the situation devolves in a “he said, she said” scenario.

The inability to prove the key elements upon which the case turns leaves the outcome to be very unpredictable. As a result, the cases tend to hinge on the credibility of the parties, the determination is, at best, a loose science, and, at worst, an exercise in hunch-based guess work.

Another problematic factor in this realm of prosecution is that charges are frequently laid after the dissolution of a relationship. It could be argued that some of the complaints may be brought for vengeful and vexatious purposes. By leaving HIV positive people vulnerable to criminal prosecution, we are sanctifying the punishment of an already vulnerable group, and pushing this community further onto the fringes of society.

The greatest disappointment, however, is that Ontario’s Attorney General has joined with the AG’s of Manitoba and Quebec (where DC was tried) by obtaining intervener status.

In an application this week to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Office of the Ontario Attorney General asks to be granted intervener status in an upcoming high-profile case revolving around those living with the human immunodeficiency virus, which can lead to AIDS. It argues that the current legal standard the courts must meet has led to different interpretations across the country, resulting in “uncertainty and unfairness” in the Canadian legal system. To remedy this, the government argues that criminal liability should be based only on whether or not someone disclosed his or her HIV-status before engaging in sexual activity and not just on the safety risks they pose.

This is a major slap in the face to the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure (CLHE) campaign urging Ontario’s Attorney General to develop prosecutorial guidelines for Crown prosecutors handling allegations of HIV non-disclosure.  The working group produced an excellent report in June 2011 which calls for restraint in HIV non-disclosure prosecutions and provides detailed legal and practice guidance covering general principles; bail; scientific/medical evidence and experts; charge screening; resolution discussions; sentencing; and complainant considerations. The report, available here, is a must-read for all advocates working in their own countries to obtain prosecutorial guidelines.

In a recent email, CLHE co-chairs Ryan Peck and Anne Marie DiCenso outline the problems they perceive with the promises made by the Ministry of the Ontario Attorney General’s and its current position as intervener.

In December 2010, Chris Bentley, the former Attorney General, promised to develop guidelines. Since then, the Ministry of the Attorney General has not informed CLHE when it will be honouring its commitment to develop prosecutorial guidelines, and has not responded to CLHE’s guideline recommendations. CLHE’s recommendations are at http://www.catie.ca/pdf/Brochures/HIV-non-disclosure-criminal-law.pdf.

It is particularly troubling that the Attorney General, after committing to develop guidelines, has filed materials at the Supreme Court of Canada calling upon the Court to rule that people living with HIV must disclose their HIV status before any sexual activity whatsoever, and that not disclosing should be prosecuted as an aggravated sexual assault, which is one of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code.

When asked about this position, former Attorney General, Chris Bentley, indicated that although the intervention materials advocate for the elimination of the current significant risk test, the Attorney General of Ontario has no intention of taking such a position at the Supreme Court of Canada.

It is vital that the Attorney General fulfill the promises made.

But, as of today, we have not received any guarantee from the new Attorney General, John Gerretsen, that the Ministry of Attorney General will amend its intervention materials and take the position that people living with HIV should not be prosecuted when there is no significant risk of HIV transmission.

The Ministry of the Attorney General has until December 20 to submit its final materials to the Supreme Court.  While preparing the materials, the new Attorney General, John Gerretsen, needs to know that the community is mobilized and is watching him.

The most effective way to do this is for everyone who reads this post to endorse the call for guidelines. While the Ministry may care more about Ontarians signing the call, I have had it confirmed from my contacts at CLHE that signatures from other jurisdictions would be very helpful.

When you sign the call the following email (which you can personalise if you want) will be sent to the new Attorney General, John Gerretsen, urging him to develop guidelines by December 31, 2011.

Dear Minister Gerretsen,
I am writing to congratulate you on your new post as Attorney General, and to urge you to take action on an important issue.

As you know, your predecessor, the Honourable Chris Bentley, committed in December 2010 to draft guidelines for criminal cases involving allegation of non-disclosure of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

I urge you to draft these much-needed guidelines by December 31, 2011. I also urge you to take into account the broad-based community input provided to the Ministry of Attorney General by the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure (the Working Group). In spring 2011, the Working Group consulted over 200 people — people living with HIV/AIDS; communities affected by HIV; legal, public health, criminal justice and scientific experts; health care providers; and advocates for women’s rights in the context of sexual violence and the criminal justice system. In June 2011, the Working Group provided the Ministry with their Report and Recommendations based on these consultations.

I trust that you will draft guidelines by December 31, 2011, and that you will provide the Working Group and its constituents with an opportunity to review and provide input on this draft.

Guidelines are urgently needed to ensure that HIV-related criminal complaints are handled in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.  
Please take action.

Denmark: HIV to be removed from Article 252, but new statute wording may re-criminalise non-disclosure without “suitable protection”

Denmark’s new Minister of Justice Morten Bødskov is now taking formal steps to remove references to HIV from Article 252 of the Danish Penal Code which means that, for the time-being, HIV exposure and transmission is decriminalised.

The news was released in a letter dated 8 November and provided to me by AIDS-Fondet (Danish AIDS Foundation).

That’s the good news. The not-so-good news is that the working group set up to examine whether or not there should be a new HIV-specific law is proposing new wording for a statute that would criminalise non-disclosure of known HIV-positive status, unless “suitable protection” is used for vaginal or anal intercourse.

Their recommendations will be considered during a consultation period which ends on 6 December 2011.  Members of all branches of the criminal justice system are being consulted as well as HIV and human rights organisations.

Denmark prosecuted its first HIV-related criminal case in 1993, but the Supreme Court found in 1994 that the wording of the existing law (“wantonly or recklessly endangering life or physical ability”) did not provide a clear legal base for conviction. The phrase “fatal and incurable disease” was added in 1994, and HIV was specified in 2001.  After at least 15 prosecutions, the former Minister of Justice suspended the law earlier this year due to concerns that it no longer reflected the realities of HIV risk and harm.

The working group has produced a 20 page memo which states that the legal basis for the current statute no longer exists and, therefore, it should be repealed.  They particularly emphasise the increased life expectancy for people on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and conclude that HIV is no longer “fatal” (although it is still “incurable”).

The lifespan of a well-treated HIV-infected individual does not differ from the age and gender-matched background population, and…timely treatment is now as effective and well tolerated (i.e, usually without significant side effects) so that an estimated 85-90 per cent of patients can live a normal life, as long as they adhere to their treatment on a daily basis.

The memo then examines HIV-related risk (including the impact of ART on risk) and harm and  highlights that it is the estimated 1000 undiagnosed individuals (out of an estimated total of 5,500 people with HIV in Denmark) that are more likely to be a public health concern.

It notes that using HIV as a weapon in terms of violent attacks with needles; rape; or sex with minors could still be an aggravating factor during sentencing under other, revelent criminal statutes. However, a 1994 Supreme Court ruling found that general criminal laws, such as those proscribing bodily harm or assault could not be applied to sexual HIV exposure or transmission.

The memo then presents arguments for and against a new statute. It argues that any new law should not proscribe ‘HIV exposure’, since it notes, the risks of HIV transmission on ART “are vanishingly small” and so it would be very difficult for any prosecutor to prove that someone was exposed to HIV under these circumstances.

Since ART is now considered to be effective as condoms in reducing HIV transmission risk, the working group considered whether it might be possible to only criminalise untreated people who have unprotected sex, but worry that proving that a person on ART was uninfectious at the time of the alleged act would be too difficult.

Similarly, although they consider the UNAIDS recomendation to only criminalise intentional transmission via non-HIV-specific laws, they were concerned that proving such a state of mind would be extremely difficult.

They conclude that if a new statute were to replace Article 252 it should criminalise non-disclosure unless “suitable protection” is used. (This potentially leaves it open to argue that ART as well as condoms could be considered “suitable protection.”) Their suggested wording is

§ x. Whoever has a contagious, sexually transmissible infection which is incurable and requires lifelong treatment and has intercourse with a person without informing them of the infection, or using suitable protection, is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years.

They note, however, that since the harm of HIV is reduced due to the impact of ART that the current maximum sentence of 8 years in prison should be reduced to 2 years and “the normal penalty should be a fine or a short (suspended) term of imprisonment.”

Although they are not necessarily recommending this new statute, the working group warns that “decriminalisation…may have unintended, negative consequences” and that public health and community based HIV organisations alike should ensure that health education about HIV and how to avoid it continues unabated because “it is important to send the message that HIV is still a disease that must be taken seriously.”