Austria: Matthew Weait guest blogs on recent mother-to-child transmission conviction of HIV denialist

The recent conviction of Austrian HIV denialist Barbara Seebald for:

  1. rejecting taking the prescribed medicine during her pregnancy despite knowing of her HIV infection,
  2. giving birth to her child naturally and at home with the help of a midwife who was not informed about her HIV infection despite the former arrangement with the doctors that the birth should be a Caesarean,
  3. breastfeeding the newborn and
  4. not giving medicine to her daughter

comes at critical time, just before the subject of the criminalisation of HIV exposure and transmission comes under the spotlight at the International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010) held in Austria’s capital Vienna.

Mrs Seebald – whose husband, Leonhard, had been charged as co-conspirator, but who died in May – was given a ten month suspended sentence, which she is currently appealing. Her case received the full UK tabloid treatment in The Sun last Tuesday.

Dr Matthew Weait, Reader in Socio-Legal Studies at Birkbeck College, London, author of Intimacy and Responsibility: The Criminalisation of HIV Transmission, and a member of the Technical Advisory Group of the recently-launched UNDP/UNAIDS Global Commission on HIV and the Law, has provided me with a thought-provoking analysis of the case that I’m posting in full below.

Denialism and Criminalisation

by Matthew Weait

The recent Seebald case in Austria raises a number of thorny questions for those opposed to the criminalisation of HIV exposure and transmission. These are my initial thoughts.

Why do we punish? Among the reasons are to make a moral example (a retributive justification), or to deter the defendant and others (an instrumental justification). If we subscribe to a retributive justification, then the defendant needs to be morally blameworthy – not just generally, but in respect of the particular conduct they have engaged in. Such blameworthiness will typically be because they intended the harm that was committed, because they took an unjustifiable risk, or because (more rarely) they were grossly negligent. As a matter of general principle, retribution requires moral fault on the part of the defendant, in the sense that they (not some hypothetical person) knew that they were at fault and were acting wrongly. If we subscribe to a more instrumental justification – and are more concerned with the effects of a person’s conduct than with their moral fault – we may be satisfied with a criminal law that takes an objective approach. In other words, would a reasonable person have done this? Would a reasonable person have been aware of the risk?

Someone who fails to take precautions against the onward transmission of HIV and / or who transmits HIV to another but who honestly believes that HIV does not cause AIDS, or who denies the relevance and / or meaning of HIV infection, cannot, according to a purely retributive approach, be legitimately punished. The honest belief negates their fault. Very few criminal law systems subscribe to such an approach, because there is always a social or public interest in harmful, or potentially harmful behaviour. More typically there needs to be a threshold moral fault, coupled with an objective (public interest) test.

The question raised by the Seebald case, then, is whether a person who honestly holds a denialist position may legitimately be punished where they infect another person with HIV, or expose them to the risk of HIV infection?

From a purely legal perspective, in the context of Austrian criminal law, the answer is yes. The Austrian penal code criminalises both intentional and negligent exposure and transmission. Put simply, its concern is not so much with the moral blameworthiness of the defendant as in the protection of the interests of others. There is however, a more general question as to whether the Austrian approach, and that of other countries which have similar laws, is justifiable.

My own answer is no, for the following reasons.

First, I believe that the criminalisation of non-intentional HIV transmission and exposure is unjustifiable on public health grounds, as well as being morally suspect. There is widespread international agreement on this point, the reasons articulated in a number of well-informed, thoughtful and coherently argued interventions. It follows that someone who honestly (even if misguidedly) denies the relationship between HIV and AIDS cannot legitimately be punished for onward transmission of HIV, unless one takes the view that such honest belief is to be ignored. And if we ignore it, then we fail to take seriously the reasons – whatever those might be – for denialism. These might be grounded in a person’s particular life story; or they might result from misinformation or misunderstanding. Whatever its cause, and however difficult it might be to understand that denialism or to sympathise with it, our incomprehension cannot be a sufficient justification for criminalisation and punishment. Put another way, a general opposition to criminalisation of non-intentional exposure and transmission cannot be displaced by conduct whose roots lie in ignorance. Doing otherwise effectively makes a failure to accept what most other people believe a sufficient justification for punishment, and that has a frighteningly totalitarian ring to it.

More generally, it seems to me that the criminalisation and punishment of a denialist – apart from the immediate impact on her or his personal and domestic life – displaces the more important issues (a) of systemic failures in HIV/AIDS education, and (b) of the effects of HIV-related stigma and prejudice. If we criminalise people who hold beliefs that the majority do not share, we risk reducing larger, structural, general problems to the level of the particular, the individual and exceptional. This will get us nowhere fast, and simply provides further opportunities for human interest-driven, and scandal-hungry media to demonise and reinforce negative images of people living with HIV.

We must resist the framing of events and episodes such as those represented by the Seebald case as a criminal law problem. If we do this, we necessarily imply that there is a criminal law solution – or, more strongly, that only a criminal law solution is needed. This is both wrong-headed and dangerous. The problem is far more complex, and requires a far more nuanced, sensitive and humane response – one that understands, acknowledges and addresses the reasons for a person’s denialism position rather than simply punishing them for it.

UK: New Guidance for Police Investigating Criminal Transmission of HIV

I’m reproducing below a press release issued yesterday by the National AIDS Trust (NAT) about the new UK (with the exception of Scotland) guidance for police officers investigating allegations of criminal HIV transmission. We’ll hear more about the guidance – a world’s first – and how it was developed, at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna which begins on Sunday.

Police and HIV sector work together to produce guidance

New guidance has been produced to help police when investigating allegations of criminal transmission of HIV. The guidance provides police officers with basic facts about HIV and sets out advice on how to deal with complaints about reckless (or intentional) transmission of HIV in a fair and sensitive manner.

The new guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) was developed by a working group which included police officers, representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Policing Improvement Agency, and the National AIDS Trust. Police across England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be expected to follow new guidance.

Ellie O’Connor, Detective Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police, comments;

“Investigations into the criminal transmission of HIV are extremely rare but we know they cause a lot of anxiety for the individuals involved. It is important police officers have an understanding HIV and what to do should someone make a complaint.

In producing this guidance we listened to the concerns of the HIV sector and worked in partnership with them. We strongly encourage all police forces to disseminate this guidance and ensure officers know to access it when a case occurs.”

Deborah Jack, Chief Executive of NAT, comments;

“Criminal investigations into HIV transmission worry many people with HIV, even though they occur only very occasionally. We are pleased that we have been able to work together with the police to produce guidance for their officers. The Association of Chief Police Officers took the issue very seriously.

The resulting guidance sets out a fair way to deal with these investigations that keeps in mind the particular sensitivities of HIV. This new guidance should serve to reduce the number of police investigations and reassure people living with HIV of what they can expect in the unlikely circumstance this occurs.”

For further information about this issue NAT and THT have produced a leaflet for people living with HIV – Prosecutions for HIV Transmission: A guide for people living with HIV in England and Wales.

Under the new guidance for police investigating criminal transmission of HIV, people living with HIV can expect:

  • to be treated supportively.
  • for their confidentially to be respected.
  • an investigation of reckless transmission only to be pursued if a complainant has been infected with HIV
  • for the case to be continually discussed with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure only legitimate complaints are pursued.
  • contact with any other individuals relevant to the case to be initiated by trained staff at GUM clinics.
  • and uninterrupted access to medication in the event of being taken into custody.

If someone reports to police concerned that they have been exposed to HIV in the past 72 hours they will be referred to an open sexual health clinic or the nearest hospital Accident and Emergency Department to ask for PEP.

For a background study of early police investigations of alleged cases of HIV transmission see Policing Transmission by Terrence Higgins Trust.

Austria: AIDS 2010 delegates warned about criminal HIV exposure laws; law clarified but not binding

The organisers of the International AIDS Conference, due to be held in Vienna from next Sunday (18th July), have today provided an important update on Austria’s criminal HIV exposure and transmission laws.

They recommend that anyone who is aware they are living with HIV practice safer sex and safer injecting practises whilst in Austria to minimise the legal risks.

Although the Austrian Ministry of Justice has issued various opinions clarifying the law on HIV exposure and transmission – including recognising that sex with a condom or unprotected sex with an undetectable viral load is not a criminal offence – and that this is a “firm directive to the courts, it should be noted that it does not actually change the law and is not necessarily binding on the courts. As such, conference delegates are advised to always adopt safer sex practices to protect their health, minimize the risk of transmission and the associated legal risks.”

Full statement below.


Statement on Austrian Laws Impacting People Living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV)
from AIDS 2010, GNP+ and ICW

Local and international organizers for the XVIII International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010) look forward to welcoming delegates to Vienna this month.

As delegates plan their stay in Vienna, this short statement provides an overview of some Austrian laws that impact on people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV). The organizers of AIDS 2010 recommend that conference delegates read this statement to understand their legal position with respect to these areas of law.

There are two key points in this statement:

  • Intentional and negligent acts capable of transmission of HIV are criminal offences in Austria
  • Legal risks can be minimized through safer sex and safer injecting practices

Intentional and negligent acts capable of transmission of HIV are criminal offences in Austria

The Austrian Penal Code provides that it is a criminal offence to commit an act which is capable of causing the danger of spreading an infectious disease. Under the law, the disease must be reportable or notifiable. HIV is considered such an infectious disease, along with Hepatitis C, tuberculosis and gonorrhoea. An ‘act’ capable of causing danger includes sexual activity such as vaginal or anal intercourse, oral intercourse or heavy kissing where there is biting or open wounds. An ‘act’ could also include the sharing of injecting equipment.

If the act is carried out with the intent of spreading the disease then the penalty is a maximum three years imprisonment or a financial penalty. If it is an act of negligence, then the penalty is a maximum of one-year imprisonment or a financial penalty.

Under Austrian law, the following factors are irrelevant in establishing a criminal offence:

  • Whether the disease was actually transmitted. The key point is whether the act caused danger. This can be a real danger or an abstract (hypothetical) danger.
  • Whether the person carrying out the act thought, ‘without good cause’ (negligently), that the other person already carried the disease. [Note that if person who carried out the act thought ‘with good cause’ (not negligently) the other person was already infected, then the act is not a criminal offence.]
  • Whether the other person consented to the act.
  • Whether the person who carried out the act disclosed his/her disease, although this may reduce the severity of the penalty.

The Global Criminalisation Scan prepared by GNP+ shows that there have been at least 40 prosecutions in Austria resulting in at least 30 convictions. [Note that GNP+ has noted the lack of reliable data as a problem.]

It is important to note that a broad range of organisations now agree that laws that criminalise HIV transmission violate human rights and undermine public health interventions, including HIV prevention initiatives.

Legal risks can be minimized through safer sex and safer injecting practices

There have been a number of developments in Austrian case law that provide greater legal clarity on how PLHIV can minimize their legal risks in relation to the transmission of HIV. This legal information has been kindly provided by Dr Helmut Graupner, an Attorney at Law specializing in sexuality and the law in Austria.

In the lead up to AIDS 2010, the Ministry of Justice has issued an opinion clarifying the law on HIV transmissions. Whilst this opinion is a firm directive to the courts, it should be noted that it does not actually change the law and is not necessarily binding on the courts. As such, conference delegates are advised to always adopt safer sex practices to protect their health, minimize the risk of transmission and the associated legal risks.

For a person living with HIV, sexual intercourse with a condom does not constitute a criminal offence. The Supreme Court of Austria has issued a decision that sexual intercourse with a condom for a PLHIV does not constitute a criminal offence. Please note that the case law on sexual intercourse with a condom only concerns vaginal intercourse and not anal intercourse, however, the opinion of the Ministry of Justice provides that this applies to anal intercourse too.

Oral intercourse (PLHIV giving) without a condom does not constitute a criminal offence. Austrian courts have found that oral intercourse from a PLHIV to another person without a condom does not constitute a criminal offence. However, there is no case law concerning oral intercourse from an HIV-negative person to a PLHIV, so the legal position in this case remains unclear. Such intercourse should not constitute a criminal offence if safer sex practices are observed and no ejaculation into the mouth takes place. However, an HIV positive person ejaculating into the mouth of someone who is HIV negative may constitute a criminal offence. [An element of HIV transmission law in Austria is ‘abstract’ risk or hypothetical risk. Whilst there have been no cases concerning oral intercourse from an HIV-negative person to a PLHIV, due to the abstract risk element of the law, we have been advised to include this advice in the statement.]

If a PLHIV has an undetectable viral load, unprotected sexual intercourse does not constitute a criminal offence. The Ministry of Justice has provided a firm opinion that if the PLHIV has an undetectable viral load and is consistently following an effective ART regimen then sexual intercourse without a condom does not constitute a criminal offence, given that such persons are not infectious. Please note that the opinion is not binding on the courts. As such, delegates are advised to adopt safer sex practices even if they have an undetectable viral load.

The AIDS 2010 organisers recommend that all conference participants practice safer sex and safer injecting practices to protect their health, minimize the risk of transmission and the associated legal risks.

There are no restrictions in Austria for PLHIV in accessing public spaces
The Vienna public transportation system (Wiener Linien) has no regulations denying PLHIV the right to use the system and there has never been a reported incident of denied service to a PLHIV. Further, regulations denying entry to those with contagious diseases to public swimming facilities in Vienna were removed recently.

Conference organizers are grateful to representatives of the Austrian Government, the City of Vienna and the Austrian Parliament for their efforts to work with us to clarify Austrian laws impacting PLHIV. We are also grateful to them for all the other support given to the conference to make it a success.

Mexico: Laws Criminalising HIV Transmission Are Discriminatory

I’m republishing this excellent article from the Inter Press Service providing the first overview I’ve ever seen of the individual Mexican state’s laws that can be used to prosecute people with HIV for not disclosing before sex. So far there have been no prosecutions.

Mexico: Laws Criminalising HIV Transmission Are Discriminatory

Inter Press Service – June 29, 2010
Emilio Godoy

MEXICO CITY, Jun 29 (IPS) – In 30 of Mexico’s 32 states there are laws penalising transmission of HIV, the AIDS virus, which are regarded by experts as discriminatory and ineffective in curbing the epidemic.

Under the Federal Criminal Code, passing on a sexually transmitted infection (STI) or incurable disease is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison, and this is mirrored in most of the states’ legislation, where fines and community service are sometimes included as penalties.

In two states, Guerrero in the southwest and Tamaulipas in the northeast, the laws refer specifically to HIV/AIDS.

The central states of Aguascalientes and San Luis de Potosí are the only ones that do not criminalise the transmission of STIs.

In Guerrero, article 195 of the state penal code establishes prison terms of three months to five years and fines of between 20 and 100 days of the defendant’s wages for anyone who is aware they have an STI or HIV and has sexual intercourse with someone who is unaware of their condition.

In Tamaulipas, article 203 provides for sentences of six months to six years, and fines of between 10 and 50 days of the defendant’s wages, for the same offence.

“This is an alarming situation. HIV transmission should not be criminalised. It is a discriminatory practice that lends itself to continued justification of attitudes like homophobia,” José Aguilar, the national coordinator of the non-governmental Red Democracia y Sexualidad, which focuses on sex education and advocating sexual rights, told IPS.

So far, these laws have not been enforced against HIV-positive people, which is why there have been no moves to repeal them.

“This legislation was intended to curb the HIV/AIDS epidemic; but clearly, it criminalises people living with HIV. It also violates a number of human rights, for instance the rights to privacy and sexual freedom,” Mario Juárez, at the department of analysis and proposals of the state National Council to Prevent Discrimination, told IPS.

This country of 107 million people has more than 200,000 people living with HIV — the second largest infected population in Latin America after Brazil — and an HIV infection rate of 0.4 percent. In the region, over two million people are living with the virus.

Criminalisation of the transmission of HIV/AIDS is on the agenda for the 18th International AIDS Conference scheduled for Jul. 18-23 in Vienna, Austria. It was also discussed at the 11th National Congress on HIV/AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Infections, held last November in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas.

And at the 17th International AIDS Conference held in August 2008 in Mexico City, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) presented a global report on the growing criminalisation of HIV transmission.

Mexico’s national report for 2008-2009 on the fulfilment of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) in 2001, does not mention the effects of these laws.

“It’s important to have prevention measures and awareness-raising campaigns, and to build a culture of respect. Civil society is always fighting discriminatory measures like these, and always struggling against the current,” said Aguilar.

In 2007, UNAIDS and the UNDP supported the publication of a document, “Ten Reasons for Opposing Criminalisation of HIV Exposure or Transmission“, drawn up by a coalition of organisations working on HIV/AIDS, human rights and gender issues.

“The push to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission is often driven by the wish to respond to serious concerns about the ongoing rapid spread of HIV in many countries, coupled by what is perceived to be a failure of existing HIV prevention efforts,” the document says.

The 10 reasons include the ineffectiveness of such laws and their discriminatory and stigmatising nature, as well as the view that they “endanger and further oppress women.”

In Mexico the sex ratio among people living with HIV was 6.6 men for each woman in 1995, a proportion that dropped to 5.1 in 1996 and 3.6 in 2008, before increasing to four men for every woman in 2009.

Between 1995 and 2009, there were 640 homophobia-related murders, 143 of which were committed in the Mexican capital, according to the Federal District Commission on Human Rights.

“It’s an issue that just hasn’t been raised forcefully enough, and so the state has not reacted. Civil society organisations should take up the question and air it in public,” said Juárez, in regard to the laws and their possible consequences.

But so far there have been no legislative initiatives to eliminate the laws criminalising HIV transmission in Mexico.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has approved a grant of 70 million dollars for a Mexican project aimed at high risk groups such as men who have sex with men, sex workers and intravenous drug users.

The Global Fund, based in Geneva, Switzerland, is a public-private partnership of international donors, the governments of the Group of Eight most powerful countries, and non-governmental organisations, devoted to preventing and treating AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in needy countries.

UK: The scandal of Scottish HIV exposure prosecutions (updated)

Update: June 29 2010

Mark Deveraux’s appeal against the length of his sentence has been successful and he will now serve eight years in prison, rather than the ten years passed down in February.

BBC news online reports

At the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, Lord Osborne, sitting with Lord Kingarth, ruled that the sentence had been excessive.

Mr Deveraux continues to make tabloid headlines. On Sunday, Britain’s largest circulation newspaper, the News of the World reported

HIV monster enjoys day out of jail. HIV monster Mark Devereaux was out in the sunshine this week — on his first jaunt from jail to have treatment for his disease at the taxpayers’ expense. The fiend, who infected one lover and slept with three other women knowing he had HIV, was whisked out of Peterhead nick on Thursday for a trip to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.

A second article that interviews his ‘victim’ provides more details here.

The appeal judges decided on Tuesday that Devereaux should have been jailed for 12 years but his early admission had earned him a discount of a third.

Original post: Feb 26 2010

Yesterday, Mark Devereaux was sentenced to ten years in prison after being convicted of infecting one female partner with HIV and having unprotected sex with three other women without disclosing his HIV status.

There has been much media response, ranging from the sensationistically stigmatising (Scottish Sun) to the balanced and liberal (BBC via THT).

However, my favourite response comes from a blog posting by a Scottish “socio-legal researcher [with] a particular interest in the diffusion of social knowledges and how they come to exercise legal force.” I am posting below, with their permission, the entire posting from the Lallands Peat Worrier blog entitled The scandal of Scottish HIV exposure prosecutions….

When it was reported that Mark Devereaux had plead guilty to four charges of culpable and reckless conduct in the High Court in Dumbarton, I wrote about some of the implications and justification for Scots criminalisation of HIV transmission. Let’s be clear on our facts. Devereaux did not tell four of his sexual partners that he had been diagnosed with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Reportedly, he had been in long term relationships with two of these women. One of the women with whom Devereaux had an extended relationship was herself diagnosed as HIV positive as a result of their unprotected sex. The three other women were not. Yet four charges were pressed against Devereaux for culpable and reckless conduct. The three for mere exposure, as opposed to reckless transmission of HIV despite personal knowledge of that status, are the first such prosecutions in the United Kingdom. He has now been sentenced.

My first post on this subject asked a number of questions, explored a number of the issues. How do we construct harm? How do we select what harms are punishable by our criminal law? By contrast, this post makes a more specific argument. I believe that despite his strongly unattractive conduct, his lies, the emotional distress he has certainly caused a number of people – that it is absurd to prosecute a man for “exposing others” – and notice how passively this constructs female sexuality – to HIV. On transmission, my mind is less made up. However, as I commented earlier, the present legal position means that it is at least theoretically illegal for those who are HIV positive to engage in procreative sex in Scotland. This is scandalous. Finally, partly informed by the foregoing, sentencing the miserable Mark Devereaux to 10 years in prison is palpably excessive. Through his legal agents, I hope he ventures to lodge an appeal against the sentence handed down by the Court this month.

The Scottish legal magazine the Firm have Lord Pentland’s full sentencing statement of the 25th of February. They don’t begin well, confirming that “A man has been sentenced to ten years in jail after embarking on a series of sexual relations whilst in the knowledge that sexual contact would pass on the HIV infection to his partners” (my emphasis). This, as the facts of the case bear out, is total bunkum. Devereaux pled guilty to four charges of culpable and reckless conduct – three of which were prosecutions for “exposure”, while only one woman is now HIV positive as a result of Devereaux’s actions. We’re dealing with risk and potentialities here, not unavoidable necessities implied by the Firm’s would. Here is what Lord Pentland had to say:

“Mark Richard Devereaux, you have pled guilty to four charges of culpable and reckless conduct arising from a prolonged and sustained course of utterly irresponsible, dangerous and selfish sexual behaviour on your part. In short, knowing full well for many years that you had been infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, you repeatedly and regularly had sexual intercourse with a number of women, without taking any steps to protect them against the risk that you would thereby transmit the virus to them. You were well aware from the medical advice given to you that you were at risk of infecting any sexual partner if you had unprotected intercourse, but you chose not to inform any of your partners that you had the virus and you chose not to use a condom or take any precautions.

You were engaged in long-term relationships with two of your victims and you infected one of these women with the virus. She decided to have an abortion when she discovered that she was infected. When the other of your long-term partners found your medication at one stage, you denied that it was for HIV and continued to have unprotected sex with her.

Those of your victims whom you did not infect were nonetheless each exposed to a considerable risk of contracting the virus. It seems to me that you callously and cruelly betrayed the trust placed in you by each of your partners and that you deceived them for your own self-centred reasons. Each of your victims has been devastated by these events. The person whom you infected will have to live for the remainder of her life with the knowledge that she now has the virus. She will require to have regular medical treatment and to take regular medication. She may suffer further consequences and must live with the uncertainty of that hanging over her. The charge in relation to her includes the serious aggravation that her life has been endangered. The others have all suffered great distress and anxiety on learning the truth about you and your deceitful and reprehensible conduct towards them.

I have taken full account of all that has been said on your behalf by Mr. Renucci and of the contents of the Social Enquiry Report. I accept that you have a good employment record and that you have no analogous criminal convictions. I am willing to accept, to some degree, that you pushed the reality of matters to the back of your mind, but this cannot in any sense excuse the highly irresponsible nature of your behaviour.

In my opinion, your persistent failure to be open about your condition and your prolonged insistence on having unprotected sex with a number of women over a period of several years shows a gross level of recklessness on your part and a total indifference to the welfare of those with whom you had intimate relations. In these circumstances, a substantial custodial sentence must be imposed. Had it not been for your guilty plea tendered at an early stage, I would have sentenced you to a term of thirteen years imprisonment.

You are entitled, as a matter of law, to a discount to reflect the fact that you pled guilty. In selecting the discount, I note that you made full admissions to the police when they interviewed you in July 2009. It is accordingly difficult to see that you ever had any possible defence to the charges. I accept, however, for the reasons set out by your counsel that your early admission of guilt had some utilitarian value. In the whole circumstances, I shall exercise the discretion conferred on me by reducing the sentence to one of ten years imprisonment. This is a cumulative sentence imposed in respect of all four charges. I shall backdate that sentence to 19 January 2010 since when you have been in custody in relation to this matter. I have already certified you for the purposes of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Clerk of Court will inform you in writing of the period during which the notification requirements will apply.”


Flatly, I’m appalled that the Court considers 13 years appropriate punishment for the charges as libelled, despite the reduced quantum for formal contrition and admission of fault. Moreover, a single ‘cumulative’ sentence is a suspicious beast – how does it break down? One year a piece for the exposure cases, ten for transmission? Giovanni Mola, whose case I discussed in my previous remarks, received nine years imprisonment for reckless and culpable transmission. He pled not guilty, however, and thus received no reduction for tendering a guilty plea. Given that comparator, it is difficult to tease out exactly how the case broke down in Lord Pentland’s mind. It is fair to argue that the exposure offences, which I’m particularly concerned with here, were tabulated to at least one year apiece.

Which brings us on to the nature of the conduct justifying such an imposition of penalty. Detective Inspector Martin Dunn, of Grampian Police, is quoted elsewhere remarking (fairly in the first sentence) that: “Devereaux acted with almost unbelievable irresponsibility and recklessness.” The Inspectors then embroiders this remark with another: “He has blighted the lives of all the women he had relationships with since being diagnosed”. I fail to see how this is true with respect to the three cases of culpable and reckless exposure. Like a tedious bore with his cyclically recurring ‘cancer-scare’ story, who relates how the queer, painless lump that put his world all out of joint and prompted melancholy reflections on his own morality was merely a benign cyst – yet still petitions for our interest and confirmation of his victim status. I don’t mean to imply that this whole process can have been easy for any of the women by any measure. I’m sure much upset and alarm resulted when Devereaux’s sexual partners realised that their past conduct may have had consequences which are unknown and challenging. But don’t let’s forget – only one of these women have any lasting physical repercussions. So why talk about them as if all four cases were fundamentally the same? Why the justifying innuendo, the implausible claims to permanent injury? “The others have all suffered great distress and anxiety on learning the truth about you and your deceitful and reprehensible conduct towards them”, said Lord Pentland. True enough, I’m sure. But hardly the stuff that state prosecutions are justified by, is it?

How many individuals sexually betray their fidelity to a partner – and generate analogous care and stress? How many parents inflict their neuroses on their guileless children to their permanent psychological injury and the disfigurement of their life’s potential? How many employers callously and with malice a’forethought, make their workforces redundant but luxuriate in inflated bonuses, to the workers’ significant anxiety, distress and manifest suffering? The point about all of this is not to collapse any of these claims to have suffered, to have been the victim of another. Rather, they highlight the crucial point – the criminal law doesn’t exist to salve hurt feelings or correct all the small and major injustices which we all inflict on one another. Its causes of action are generally and ought to be far narrower than the manifold capacity of humankind to err and sin. There but by the Grace of God, you might argue, for these three women, left unharmed. No thanks to Devereaux, certainly, but smiling Fortune and a bit of luck. Yet this isn’t just about one man, his lies, his breaches of trust, his scurrying and contemptible character. We operate within an ideology of legal rationality, where Devereaux the individual is separable from Devereaux the legal category, the formal authority, the basis for legal reasoning in the future. This second Devereaux concerns me acutely – the prosecution and punishment of HIV exposure and the criminalisation of the sex lives a section of the community should concern us all. Particularly with the tabloids commentating at a shrill fever pitch, full of passionate intensity.

Global: UN Global Commission on HIV and the Law launched, US refuses entry to TAG member

Yesterday, UNDP and UNAIDS launched the new Global Commission on HIV and the Law, previously mentioned here.

The Commission’s aim is to increase understanding of the impact of the legal environment on national HIV responses. Its aim is to focus on how laws and law enforcement can support, rather than block, effective HIV responses.

Although most reports have simply reworked parts of the UNDP or UNAIDS press releases, there is a lot more detail available from the UNDP website, including links to the five page information note and detailed biographies of the Commissioners and members of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG).

The Global Commission on HIV and the Law brings together world-renowned public leaders from many walks of life and regions. Experts on law, public health, human rights, and HIV will support the Commissions’ work. Commissioners will gather and share evidence about the extent of the impact of law and law enforcement on the lives of people living with HIV and those most vulnerable to HIV. They will make recommendations on how the law can better support universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. Regional hearings, a key innovation, will provide a space in which those most directly affected by HIV-related laws can share their experiences with policy makers. This direct interaction is critical. It has long been recognized that the law is a critical part of any HIV response, whether it be formal or traditional law, law enforcement or access to justice. All of these can help determine whether people living with or affected by HIV can access services, protect themselves from HIV, and live fulfilling lives grounded in human dignity.

The list of Commissioners is extremely impressive and includes two former presidents – Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil and Festus Gontebanye Mogae, former President of Botswana – and several currently elected politicans – US Congresswoman Barbara Lee, New Zealand Representative Charles Chauvel and Hon. Dame Carol Kidu, MP in Papua New Guinea. It also includes the two most respected judges in the field of HIV and the law – Australia’s Hon. Michael Kirby and South Africa’s Justice Edwin Cameron.

I’m also proud to note that many members of the TAG are friends and colleagues including Aziza Ahmed, Scott Burris, Mandeep Dhaliwal, Richard Elliott, Kevin Moody, Susan Timberlake, and Matthew Weait.

Last week (17-18 June), the TAG held its first meeting at the UNDP building in New York. I hear it was amazingly interesting and productive. However, one member of the TAG, Cheryl Overs, was missing. This tireless and passionate advocate on behalf of sex workers, who is currently Senior Research Fellow in the Michael Kirby Centre for Public Health and Human Rights at Monash University, was apparently denied entry by US immigration because she deemed a security risk due to her association with sex work. Oh, the irony!

The Commission’s findings and recommendations will be announced in December 2011, in time for AIDS 2012 due to be held in Washington DC.

Global: UNAIDS/UNDP supports Swiss statement, announces new Global Commission on HIV and the Law

Following on from yesterday’s post about the report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Health, on the impact of criminalisation, UNAIDS and UNDP have issued a statement welcoming the report. (Click here for the pdf: full text below)

One of the most intriguing things about this statement is its recognition that antiretroviral therapy significantly reduces the risk of infection on an individual level, something UNAIDS has not previously supported.

It is even more critical to get those living with HIV on treatment as the latest science shows that treatment reduces HIV transmission by 92% at the population level, and can have even greater impacts for individuals.

The footnote following the phrase “greater impacts for individuals” states:

The Swiss National AIDS Commission (EKAF) has stated that “an HIV-infected person on antiretroviral therapy with completely suppressed viraemia (‘effective ART’) is not sexually infectious, i.e. cannot transmit HIV through sexual contact.” However, the Commission qualifies its statement, noting that it is considered valid only so long as: (a) the person adheres to antiretroviral therapy, the effects of which must be evaluated regularly by the treating physician, and (b) the viral load has been suppressed (below 40 copies/ml) for at least six months, and (c) there are no other sexually transmitted infections. See P Vernazza et al (2008), “Les personnes séropositives ne souffrant d’aucune autre MST et suivant un traitment antirétroviral efficace ne transmettent pas le VIH par voie sexuelle”, Bulletin des médecins suisses 89:165-169. Available on-line at http://www.saez.ch/pdf_f/2008/2008-05/2008-05-089.PDF

This contrasts with the extremely non-committal statement UNAIDS made jointly with WHO immediately after the Swiss Statement.

But that’s all water under the bridge, I guess. Yes, any laws that prevent people from knowing their status and accessing treatment are bad. But we must fight to ensure that treatment’s impact on infectiousness is always a secondary factor to the individual’s choice regarding whether and when to start treatment. Treatment must be treatment first, prevention second. That’s a big part of the work I’m currently doing for GNP+ and UNAIDS producing a new framework for positive prevention known as Positive Health, Dignity and Prevention.

Another significant part of the UNAIDS/UNDP statement is the first public announcement of a new Global Commission on HIV and the Law (which had been called the International Commission on HIV and Law or ICAL in documents I’d previously seen) “which comprises public leaders from across the globe and will be supported by experts on HIV, law, human rights and public health. This Commission will marshal the evidence of enabling versus punitive laws on HIV responses, hold regional hearings, and issue evidence-informed recommendations.”

The Commission will be officially launched later this month.

Statement by the Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

14th Session the Human Rights Council

Agenda Item 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to
development

7 June 2010
Geneva

Mr President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen,

The UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP thank the Human Rights Council for the opportunity to speak under this agenda item. As this Council knows, for almost 30 years, the world has sought the most effective response to the HIV epidemic. This challenge has repeatedly shown that a human rights-based approach to HIV is the most effective approach to HIV.

This fact has been long recognized by the Commission on Human Rights, this Council and by Member States. This is because human rights and legal protections are essential to enable people to get the HIV information and services they need, to avoid infection, and if HIV positive to disclose their status and get treatment. It is even more critical to get those living with HIV on treatment as the latest science shows that treatment reduces HIV transmission by 92% at the population level, and can have even greater impacts for individuals.

Many States continue to criminalize sexual minorities, people who use drugs, people
who engage in sex work, as well as people living with HIV. The result is that thousands of people fear or are unable to get tested for HIV, to disclose their HIV status, to access HIV prevention, treatment and care. This puts both these groups and the larger public at risk. Under these circumstances, universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support will not be realised; and we will not achieve many of the Millennium Development Goals.

Because of this, the Executive Director of UNAIDS, Michel Sidibé, has made one of the corporate priorities of UNAIDS to support countries to “remove punitive laws, policies, practices, stigma and discrimination that block effective AIDS responses.”

For these reasons, the UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP welcome the report of the Special Rapportueur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health. We hope it will help to generate constructive debate, and catalyse change toward a more rights-based and effective AIDS response.

The report of the Special Rapporteur underlines how the criminal law, when misused, can and does have a very negative impact on the right to health. When the criminal law is applied to adults engaging in private consensual sexual behavior – whether in the context of same-sex sexual orientation or in the context of the exchange of money for sex – it also violates the rights to privacy and liberty and acts as a major impediment to HIV prevention and treatment. Where overly broad criminal laws are applied to people living with HIV, the impact is in direct contradiction to public health efforts to encourage people to come forward to get on treatment and practice safe sex, and reduce HIV transmission in the context of drug use.

The UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP are fully aware that, in many societies, these issues are the subject of much social, cultural and religious debate. However, the UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP are concerned that criminalization of aspects of private, consensual adult sexual conduct singles out particular groups for invidious treatment, undermines individual and public health, and transgresses various international human rights norms. Thus, for public health and human rights reasons, the UNAIDS Executive Director and the United Nations Secretary General have called for the removal of punitive laws, policies and practices that hamper the AIDS response. Successful AIDS responses do not punish people, they protect them.

UNDP, on behalf of UNAIDS, is launching the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, which comprises public leaders from across the globe and will be supported by experts on HIV, law, human rights and public health. This Commission will marshal the evidence of enabling versus punitive laws on HIV responses, hold regional hearings, and issue evidence-informed recommendations. The UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP greatly hope that this Commission will help States and civil society to better use law, law enforcement and access to justice to protect all people from HIV and its impact, as well as from human rights violations in the context of HIV. We look forward to bring to the Council the findings of the Commission at the end of 2011.

Thank you.

Global: UN ‘Criminalisation undermines the Human Right to Health’

One of the most significant documents produced so far on the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission was published today by the United Nations.

It is a report by Anand Grover, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Health, specifically the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

His report highlights the many human rights arguments against the use of the criminal law to prosecute anything except the intentional (i.e. proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that transmission was intended and malicious).

It begins with a very forceful statement.

… the public health goals of legal sanctions are not realized by criminalization. In fact, they are often undermined by it, as is the realization of the right to health. The criminalization of HIV/AIDS transmission also infringes on many other human rights, such as the rights to privacy, to be free from discrimination and to equality, which in turn impacts upon the realization of the right to health. The criminalization of HIV transmission, or behaviours around transmission, is generally recognized as counterproductive, and should be reconsidered in the context of any comprehensive HIV/AIDS response framework.

It then examines the various ways that HIV transmission has been criminalised around the globe before examining the effect on the right to health. It ends with a bang, too.

Informed individuals take steps to prevent HIV transmission irrespective of criminal laws around transmission, and there is little evidence that specific laws criminalizing HIV transmission deter or modify the behaviour of individuals. With little benefit demonstrated in terms of achieving the aims of the criminal law or public health, and a corresponding risk of alienation, stigmatization and fear, it is difficult to see why the criminalization of HIV transmission is justified at all. Laws that are unnecessarily punitive will undermine any public health response to HIV, rather than assist it.

The entire document also includes an examination on the criminalisation of same-sex behaviour, sexual orientation and gender identify as well as sex work, and can be downloaded in full from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

For your convenience, I have included pretty much the entire section on the criminalisation of non-disclosure, exposure and transmission below, complete with paragraph numbers, for easy quoting.

A webcast of Mr Grover’s 13 minute speech to the UN General Assembly can be found here. Disappointingly, just one minute is dedicated to the criminalisation of non-disclosure, exposure and transmission (at 2:24).

Nevertheless, this report, and Mr Grover’s speech, is significant in the history of criminalisation, and should be considered a major victory for anti-criminalisation advocates around the world.

Now, we just have to remind our goverments and policymakers to heed his words…

United Nations General Assembly

Human Rights Council

Fourteenth Session

A/HRC/14/20

27 April 2010

Agenda item 3

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover.

HIV transmission

51. The Special Rapporteur notes that the criminalization of HIV transmission has formed a part of the global response to the HIV/AIDS crisis since its inception. Unfortunately, the public health goals of legal sanctions are not realized by criminalization. In fact, they are often undermined by it, as is the realization of the right to health. The criminalization of HIV/AIDS transmission also infringes on many other human rights, such as the rights to privacy, to be free from discrimination and to equality, which in turn impacts upon the realization of the right to health. The criminalization of HIV transmission, or behaviours around transmission, is generally recognized as counterproductive, and should be reconsidered in the context of any comprehensive HIV/AIDS response framework.

Effects of criminalization on the right to health

No impact on behaviour change or HIV spread

62. The Special Rapporteur notes that criminal laws that explicitly regulate the sexual conduct of people living with HIV have not been shown to significantly impact on sexual conduct, nor do they have a normative effect in moderating risk behaviours. Criminal law does not influence the circumstances in which most HIV transmission occurs. In many regions, the majority of people living with HIV are unaware of their positive status and most cases of HIV transmission occur through consensual sex. Private sexual conduct invariably persists in the face of possible prosecution, but when prosecution actually occurs, these behaviours are driven underground, providing less opportunity for regulation and inhibiting access to preventive activities, diagnostic services, treatment and support.

Undermining existing public health efforts

63. Criminalization of HIV transmission or exposure places legal responsibility for HIV prevention exclusively on those already living with HIV, undermining the notion of shared responsibility between sexual partners, and potentially creating a false sense of security amongst those who are HIV-negative.86 Criminalization also has the potential to discourage HIV testing, which is a core component of successful HIV/AIDS health initiatives. An additional barrier to access to services could be manifested through increased distrust in relationships with health professionals and researchers, impeding the provision of quality care and research, as people may fear that information regarding their HIV status will be used against them in a criminal case or otherwise. As the prevalence of high-risk sexual behaviour is significantly lower in individuals aware of their seropositive status, any laws that discourage testing and diagnosis have the potential to increase the prevalence of risky sexual practices and HIV transmission.

Disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities

64. In jurisdictions where HIV transmissions have been prosecuted, of the very few cases that are prosecuted out of the many infections that occur each year, the majority have been noted to involve defendants in vulnerable social and economic positions. Although laws criminalizing HIV transmission and exposure were, on occasion, enacted to provide women with greater protection, applying these laws broadly has also resulted in women being disproportionately affected. For instance, a woman was prosecuted under section 79 of the Zimbabwe Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act 23 of 2004 for having unprotected sex while HIV-positive, despite HIV not even being transmitted to the “victim” in question.

65. Women often learn they are HIV-positive before their male partners because they are more likely to seek access to health services and are consequently blamed for introducing the infection into communities. For many women, it is also difficult or impossible to negotiate safer sex or to disclose their status to a partner for fear of violence, abandonment or other negative consequences. Women may therefore face prosecution as a result of their failure to disclose, despite having valid reasons for non-disclosure. These laws do not provide women with any additional protection against violence or assurance of their rights to sexual decision-making and safety, and do not address the underlying socioeconomic factors that increase women’s vulnerability.

Criminalization of mother-to-child transmission

66. Some countries have enacted laws that criminalize mother-to-child transmission explicitly (see paragraph 54 above) or implicitly due to overly broad drafting of the law. Where the right to access to appropriate health services (such as comprehensive prevention of mother-to-child transmission services and safe breastfeeding alternatives) is not ensured, women are simply unable to take necessary precautions to prevent transmission, which could place them at risk of criminal liability. […]

Stigma, discrimination and violence

68. Stigma represents a major impediment to the implementation of successful interventions in respect of HIV/AIDS. Applying criminal law to HIV exposure or transmission can reinforce the stereotype that people living with HIV are immoral and irresponsible, further entrenching HIV-related stigma. People living with HIV/AIDS may, in turn, internalize the negative responses of others. This self-stigmatization affects the sense of pride and worth of individuals, which can lead to depression and self-imposed withdrawal, hampering access to HIV/AIDS treatment and interventions. In this way, criminalization impedes the right to health by constructing barriers to access by creating an environment in which individuals feel as if they are not deserving of treatment.

69. Discrimination against those affected by HIV/AIDS is one of the manifestations of stigma. For those living with HIV, actual and feared discrimination acts as a barrier to HIV-specific health services, including testing, anti-retroviral therapy and services in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission, in addition to broader health services.

70. The Special Rapporteur notes that individuals living with HIV have been convicted of crimes that did not actually inflict physical harm, damage any property or otherwise cause injury. Disproportionate severity in sentencing of those convicted of “HIV crimes” has become evident in a number of cases, the inference being that the defendants’ HIV status played a significant role in conviction and imprisonment. Criminal prosecutions, and the publicity stemming from them, have been found to increase stigmatization and have been perceived by people living with HIV as undermining public health efforts encouraging safer sex.

71. The criminalization of HIV transmission also increases the risk of violence directed towards affected individuals, particularly women. HIV-positive women are 10 times more likely to experience violence and abuse than women who are HIV-negative.

Right-to-health approach

72. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that any domestic legislation concerning HIV transmission should be based on a right-to-health approach; that is, States must comply with their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to health through the enactment of such legislation. Most relevantly, the obligation to protect requires States to take measures to protect all vulnerable or marginalized groups of society, and the obligation to fulfil similarly requires steps to assist individuals and communities to enjoy the right to health – particularly those who are unable to realize the right themselves.

73. Any law concerning HIV transmission should therefore be directed at issues around public infrastructure, access to medicines, information campaigns concerning HIV/AIDS and so forth. The criminalization of HIV transmission should not form the mainstay of a national HIV/AIDS response, and its necessity is questionable in any event. Informed individuals take steps to prevent HIV transmission irrespective of criminal laws around transmission, and there is little evidence that specific laws criminalizing HIV transmission deter or modify the behaviour of individuals. With little benefit demonstrated in terms of achieving the aims of the criminal law or public health, and a corresponding risk of alienation, stigmatization and fear, it is difficult to see why the criminalization of HIV transmission is justified at all. Laws that are unnecessarily punitive will undermine any public health response to HIV, rather than assist it.

74. As such, criminalization should be considered permissible only in cases involving intentional, malicious transmission. The criminalization of any lesser mens rea is not only inappropriate, but also it is counterproductive in the struggle against the spread of HIV. In the view of UNAIDS:

Criminal law should not be applied where there is no significant risk of transmission or where the person:

• Did not know that he/she was HIV-positive

• Did not understand how HIV is transmitted

• Disclosed his/her HIV-positive status to the person at risk (or honestly believed the other person was aware of his/her status through some other means)

• Did not disclose his/her HIV-positive status because of fear of violence or other serious negative consequences

• Took reasonable measures to reduce risk of transmission, such as practising safer sex through using a condom or other precautions to avoid higher risk acts

• Previously agreed on a level of mutually acceptable risk with the other person

75. Finally, domestic laws prohibiting the deliberate spread of any disease or assault, or laws concerning the age of consent, adequately cover intentional transmission of HIV should the need arise to prosecute cases where this has occurred. The use of these preexisting laws provides a legal safeguard to potential victims, without unnecessarily stigmatizing and further marginalizing those affected by HIV within the jurisdiction. States should, in addition to using pre-existing laws, issue guidelines to ensure that these laws are only utilized in cases of intentional transmission and that the relevant mens rea is to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Recommendations

76. The Special Rapporteur calls upon States:

[..]

(c) To immediately repeal laws criminalizing the unintentional transmission of or exposure to HIV, and to reconsider the use of specific laws criminalizing intentional transmission of HIV, as domestic laws of the majority of States already contain provisions which allow for prosecution of these exceptional cases.

US: CDC finally admits criminalisation is problematic

A campaign by the HIV Prevention Justice Alliance for the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to confront criminalisation in the United States is finally bearing fruit.

The HIV Prevention Justice Alliance is network of organisations advocating for effective and just HIV prevention policies for the United States, coordinated by Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP) in collaboration with AIDS Foundation of Chicago, and SisterLove.

Their campaign began in 2008. The Alliance was extremely concerned that prosecutions for HIV-associated spitting and biting were doing a lot of harm.

CDC has long maintained that contact with saliva, tears, or sweat does not expose others to an appreciable risk of HIV transmission. The continued perpetuation of false information by the justice system and the media on how the virus is transmitted underscores the need for more effective HIV communication and education strategies at the highest levels that are accessible to the general public. In light of an unabated and growing HIV epidemic among certain segments of the U.S. population, we believe that it is incumbent upon the CDC to aggressively respond and provide the public with the most accurate information to reduce HIV vulnerability.


A December 2008 letter from the CDC had previously pledged to do all of what they now promise to do (see below), but when no action was taken, the Alliance sent another letter in January 2010 to the CDC’s Kevin Fenton – Director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention – “to urge CDC to take action on the steps it had identified to address the criminalization of HIV.”

In a letter signed by Fenton, the CDC has now agreed to:

  • Update and expand the “Rumors, Myths, and Hoaxes” section of the CDC website by April 30th 2010.
  • Update and expand CDC’s factsheet and question and answer sets (Q&As) regarding HIV transmission to better address myths and misconceptions about HIV transmission by April 30th 2010.
  • Develop internal talking points to ensure CDC staff is equipped to deliver consistent, scientifically accurate information when they receive inquiries around issues of criminalization and/or myths and misconceptions about HIV transmission by April 30th 2010.
  • Survey health departments, beginining May 2010 to determine whether they have collaborative relationships with criminal justice personnel and, if so, how these relationships affect HIV prevention efforts in communities.
  • Use information obtained from the surveys to develop a communications package to provide to state and local health departments with the tools and messages they need to facilitate interactions with their criminal justice counterparts by August 30, 2010.

The letter concludes: “While these activities represent a concrete beginning, we realize there is much to be done to address the need for a public health, rather than punitive perspective to drive how people living with HIV/AIDS are approached in the United States. We all must continue to be forward thinking in this endeavor, and collectively we will make a broader impact. We at CDC appreciate the work organizations such as yours do in the communities affected by this disease.”

I’d like to congratulate all those involved in persuading the CDC to take its first tiny steps towards making a stand against the draconian treatment of people living with HIV in the United States. Their response is focused on the most egregious criminal prosecutions, and there is, indeed, “much to be done to address the need for a public health, rather than punitive perspective to drive how people living with HIV/AIDS are approached in the United States.”

For example, the CDC could also publically state that non-disclosure laws do more harm than good for public health, and also support the idea (which they already are exploring on a population level) that on an individual level people on successful antiretroviral treatment are as as unlikely to expose their sexual partners to HIV as those who wear condoms.

Click on the image of Mr Fenton’s pledge to read the entire letter.

Canadian HIV law at a crossroads (Xtra.ca)

Reposting this article from Xtra.ca published online today. Tomorrow’s verdict (due to be issued 9am Vancouver time) will be as important to people living with HIV – and public health – in Canada as the outcome of UK’s general election. Will provide full details of trial and commentary on Monday.

Canadian HIV law at a crossroads
CRIMINALIZATION OF HIV / Vancouver, Edmonton and Hamilton cases could affect future police & crown decisions
Nathaniel Christopher & Neil McKinnon / Toronto / Thursday, May 06, 2010

Cases in three provinces could shape the way HIV non-disclosure is treated by the courts in this country.

In Vancouver, an HIV-positive man awaits a verdict after a lengthy trial. He and his boyfriend had unprotected sex very rarely — possibly just once — and the poz partner was always the bottom. The trial judge has ordered a publication ban on both men’s names.

In Hamilton, a poz guy had charges against him stayed because the complainant and accused only engaged in oral sex.

And in Edmonton, a straight man in his 50s is facing an assault charge for HIV non-disclosure, but police — who have a history of splashing names and photos around in the media — are refusing to release his name.

Although there is no HIV law on the books, Canadian police have, since the mid-’90s, been charging people with offences — ranging from assault to murder — for failing to disclose their health status before having unprotected sex. HIV activists have long said that transmission should be a public health matter, not a criminal one.

In Vancouver, Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon was, as Xtra goes to press, expected to render a verdict on May 7. But she has already hinted that the case could be appealed on constitutional grounds.

The defendant is represented by BC Civil Liberties Association lawyer Jason Gratl. Gratl called Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, to the stand to testify about the adverse effects of HIV criminalization.

At the trial, Fenlon said Elliott raised important policy issues that an intervener might put before the appeal courts or the Supreme Court of Canada, but that his testimony was not relevant to the issue before her.

The court, consequently, did not consider Elliott’s testimony, but if the accused is convicted, they may end up making their case in appeals.

Elliott testified to the challenges of requiring disclosure in all circumstances, saying that approximately one quarter of all people in Canada infected with HIV don’t know they have it.

“I think people recognize challenges of HIV disclosure, including stigma and negative consequences that can very easily flow from their HIV status,” Elliott told the court. “Rather than expect people to overcome those barriers in every circumstance and impose a criminal penalty when they don’t, the emphasis should be on personal responsibility and risk reduction, a sensible prudent strategy in the ability of all people.”

He told the court that the stigma associated with HIV could be a disincentive to disclosure.

“People, quite legitimately, have concerns over employment, housing, loss of personal and other social rela-tionships, ostracism in community and denial of service by service providers,” Elliott testified. “Although we only have limited systemic research on HIV stigma, we certainly do have enough to document that there is still a pervasive stigma associated with HIV.”

He stressed the need for clarity in the law to better define what sexual activities between HIV-discordant couples constitute “significant risk” of serious bodily harm as set out in the 1998 Supreme Court of Canada case R v Cuerrier.

***

In the Vancouver case, the issue of what constitutes significant risk is paramount, because the defence is arguing that the risk of HIV transmission was as low as 1 in 2,500. In none of the three cases did transmission occur.

Dr Richard Mathias told the court he believes HIV transmission rates from anal intercourse are comparable to those from vaginal intercourse. He explained that a penetrative partner in anal sex is at risk of contracting HIV through anal fluid, which could travel up the urethra. He mentioned that in the case of uncircumcised men, the risk is higher as the fluids can infect the insertive partner through the tissue beneath the foreskin.

Crown counsel Brendan McCabe asked Mathias if he is aware of any incidents in the gay community of the virus going from an HIV-positive bottom partner to a negative top.

“No,” said Mathias, who has worked in public health for 35 years and conducted research on HIV and AIDS in the early days of the disease. He explained that the risk in the case of the accused would be 4 in 10,000 per act, but that number would multiply with each encounter.

McCabe suggested that if the accused and complainant had had five unprotected encounters, then the risk would be 20 in 10,000.

Mathias said the risk is comparable to sex between an HIV-negative bottom and an HIV-positive top when a condom is used.

The definition of “significant risk” was also at the heart of the Hamilton case, where the prosecution stayed an aggravated sexual assault charge in April. A gay man was charged in February 2009 after an ex-partner alleged they had oral sex without his disclosing that he had HIV. The charges were based on the accused’s performing oral sex, rather than receiving it.

The ex-partner has since been tested and is HIV-negative.

Elliott said in a statement:

“There was never any solid basis for significant risk of transmission. It’s a misguided overreaction to lay and pursue some of the most serious charges in the Criminal Code when no harm has occurred and the risk of HIV transmission was miniscule at most.”

***

In the Hamilton case, the name of the man who was accused is public, but, at his request, Xtra chooses not report it. In the Edmonton case, police declined to release the accused’s name. And in Vancouver, the judge ordered a publication ban on the accused’s identity.

In all three cases, the complainant’s identity cannot be disclosed by law, akin to the way the identities of rape victims are protected.

Police across the country often disclose the names of people accused of sexual assault for HIV-nondisclosure, which, among other things, outs them as HIV-positive.

The Edmonton case is unusual because, from the outset, the name of the accused has been kept under wraps.

The charge follows a March 31 police complaint by a woman claiming she slept with an Edmonton man who failed to disclose that he has HIV.

An RCMP spokesperson, Jodi Hei-denger, says the move has nothing to do with public disclosure of the health status of the accused, and everything to do with protecting the identity of the alleged victim.

“Releasing any details would without a doubt identify the victim. We are not releasing the name of the accused strictly to protect the identity of the victim,” says Heidenger.

Which could mean that the Vancouver case, where at trial the accused’s name is protected, could be more precedent-setting. The move, however, may have come too late, since the publication ban came only after the name had been bandied about in media reports and police press releases.

The Hamilton case, because it never went to trial, will likely have the least impact on jurisprudence.

The Vancouver case, with the spectre of a Supreme Court challenge hanging in the air, could be one of the most important in a decade.