Inspired new phase of AIDS Action Now! Think Twice campaign

As the next phase of AAN!’s ongoing Think Twice campaign, today we sent letters to the Ontario Crown Prosecutors who have brought forward HIV non-disclosure prosecutions, and to their bosses. Crown Prosecutors, a.k.a. Crown Attorneys, play a pivotal role in our criminal justice system. They wield enormous power.

AIDS groups go after Ontario attorney general

A coalition of Ontario HIV/AIDS groups has launched a new phase of their campaign to compel the province’s Attorney General to stop prosecuting HIV-positive Ontarians for non-disclosure.

Should courts force those with HIV to tell their sex partners?

The advances in HIV-AIDS treatment in the last decade have been nothing short of amazing, transforming the virus from what was once a death sentence to what is now a manageable disease. Antiretroviral medications keep levels of the virus in carriers so low, they are often almost undetectable, greatly reducing the risk of ever passing the virus on to sexual partners.

Canada: Ontario attorney general snubs HIV group

A letter from a top government official confirms that Ontario has halted discussions with a coalition fighting to reduce the use of criminal law in HIV-nondisclosure cases. The letter, from Mark Leach, acting deputy attorney general, to the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure (CLHE), says that the province will wait until the Supreme Court of Canada releases its decision in R v Mabior before resuming work with the group.

Germany: Justice Minister says prosecutor handled Nadja Benaissa arrest properly

Hessian Minister of Justice, Joerg-Uwe Hahn has dismissed all criticism of the actions of Ger Neuber, the Darmstadt prosecutor who arranged for the public arrest and immediate incarceration of Nadja Benaissa, and then issued a press release.

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (English translation here), he announced on Wednesday that Neuber’s actions were “legally and technically acceptable”; that he had been aware of Benaissa’s impending arrest two days prior; and that the public interest outweighed Ms Benaissa’s right to privacy.

Last Saturday, The Guardian ran an (rather oddly worded, perhaps badly translated?) opinion piece by German journalist Sabine Rennefanz, outlining her criticisms of Neuber’s actions, and comparing the case to that of German MP, Joerg Tauss, whose child pornography charges were dismissed.

What is worrying is how the state prosecution made the private case into a public drama. The singer was arrested publicly before a gig in a Frankfurt nightclub and was taken into custody “because of the danger of repetition”, as the prosecutor’s office put it. The suspect was treated as if it was already proven that she had infected the man that sued her, which is not the case. It is not the first time that a prominent person has been the subject of an aggressive information policy from a state prosecution service, but questions remain: Benaissa was arrested and kept in custody “because of the danger of repetition”. But, if it was so urgent, why did they not arrest her earlier? The police had been on the case since June 2008.

When a member of parliament, Joerg Tauss, tried to defend himself against charges of dealing with child pornography, his claims were publicly dismissed by the Karlsruhe prosecutor, Rüdiger Rehring. Legal experts note a change in the information policy: previously prosecutors had silently worked in the background, shunning the public eye, while the lawyers were the celebrities trying to influence public opinion. Now they appear to be trying to limit control and influence reporting, as in this young woman’s case.

UK: Gonorrhoea prosecution ‘a dangerous development’

I am posting an excellent analysis by Dr Matthew Weait, Senior Lecturer in Law and Legal Studies at Birkbeck College, London (and author of Intimacy and Responsibility: The Criminalisation of HIV Transmission) of the recent successful prosecution of a male migrant for ‘recklessly’ transmitting the sexually transmitted infection, gonorrhoea, through non-sexual means.

A Dangerous Development
by Dr Matthew Weait
Senior Lecturer in Law and Legal Studies
Faculty of Lifelong Learning
Birkbeck College, London

In the recent case of R v Peace Marangwanda [2009] EWCA Crim 60, the English Court of Appeal was called upon to hear an appeal against sentence that has potentially profound implications for debates surrounding the criminalisation of HIV and other serious sexually transmissible infections. Summarised, the facts were that the applicant (PM) had been charged with two offences of sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9(1) and (2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It had been alleged that PM had met the mother of the children (E and Z), started a relationship and moved in with her in September 2005. In November 2005 PM was diagnosed with gonorrhoea, and he received treatment. A month later, in December 2005, the children, E and Z, were diagnosed as having contracted gonorrhoea. PM was charged, prosecuted and tried in 2007 after E made a complaint fo sexual abuse. The jury could not agree on a verdict after hearing PM’s defence that he was not suffering from gonorrhoea at the relevant time, and that it was rather a severe from of thrush. A retrial was scheduled to take place in June 2007. Prior to the retrial a compromise was suggested by defence counsel whereby PM would plead guilty to two counts of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. on the basis that he had recklessly transmitted gonorrhoea to E and Z.

The plea was entered

“ … on the basis that the Defendant, whilst possessed of the knowledge that he was suffering from gonorrhoea, recklessly passed on the said gonorrhoea to the two complainants.

2. Such transmission was carried our not in any way by means of any sexual contact, direct or indirect. Such transmission was likely to have been occasioned in circumstances where the Defendant, after having touched himself and then failing to apply the proper hygiene standards, has then gone on to touch the children in an ordinary way. The Defendant would, on occasion, be involved in the daily care of the two young Complainants. This would include assisting with washing, dressing and general supervisory activities with the same.

3. It was foreseeable that such a condition as gonorrhoea could have been passed and accordingly the Defendant failed in ensuring that he adhered to the proper sanitary and hygienic principles which would have been ordinarily implied.”

PM was sentenced to two years immediate imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. He was also recommended for deportation, disqualified from working with children for life and made subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order.

PM appealed on a number of grounds, one of which was that he had pleaded guilty to offences that were not medically possible and another that, even if it were medically possible, he had not acted recklessly. (The two other grounds are not of such immediate relevance here and are not discussed – see the case report.) The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentence passed was manifestly excessive and that a sentence of 12 months on each count should have been passed, to be served concurrently. For legal reasons this meant that the order relating to not being able to work with children was quashed, but the other orders were upheld.


This is an important and worrying decision for a number of reasons. The plea of guilty to the charges under section 20 were entered on the understanding that the gonorrhoea had been passed through casual touching. PM, it was accepted, cared for E and Z (which included physical touching). The pre-sentence report (which is prepared to assist the judge in sentencing) stated that

“The defendant has pleaded guilty to the offence in accordance with the basis of plea, namely that he inadvertently passed on gonorrhoea to the two children due to poor personal hygiene.

Mr Marangwanda was, at the time of the offence, in a relationship with the mother of the two victims. He was periodically living at the family home and as such will have regular conduct with the children.

The defendant accepts culpability in as much as he acknowledges he passed on the sexually transmitted infection to the two girls due to poor personal hygiene.

The defendant accepts that his behaviour was reckless and that as a result, two young children contracted a sexually transmitted infection.”

It was on this basis that PM was sentenced, and the Court of Appeal accepted the reasoning. It states (at paragraph 12) that

In the judgment of this court, by his plea, the defendant accepted the medical possibility of the transmission of that disease. As he knew he had gonorrhoea, provided he knew that that disease may be transmitted by transference of mucosa by hand, that transference would have constituted a reckless act …

The Court goes on to say (at para 13) that

… by virtue of the basis of plea and the applicant’s pleas, he must have been accepting the possibility that in a domestic or familial setting the disease could have been transferred. In such circumstances it would have been his duty to take the necessary protection to ensure there was no transference. We are not persuaded that there is anything in that ground of appeal.

This is, it is suggested, deeply problematic, as are other aspects of the case. First, the Court seems to be suggesting that there is a duty to take the necessary protection against the transmission of disease. With respect, there exists no such legal duty anywhere in English law. A person is not reckless because he fails to take precautions against transmission; he is reckless if it is established that he was aware of the risk of transmission. This might seem a fine distinction , but it is an important one. If the Court is thinking particularly of the positive obligation that a carer has towards children, then it should have articulated that far more clearly. In the absence of clarification it suggests that a person living with HIV has a positive obligation – enforceable at law – to prevent onward transmission to sexual partners. (And, in the light of the recent Hep B case, that those infected with Hep B may have a positive obligation to alert others not to share their razors, for example). This goes beyond the principles established in R v Dica and R v Konzani. The CPS Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving the sexual transmission of disease indicate that the appropriate use of condoms by a person living with HIV would ordinarily preclude a finding of recklessness – they do not (because the law does not require it) state that a person living with HIV is under an obligation to use a condom (or, of course, to disclose status).

Another problematic aspect of the decision is that appears to be a bad compromise. The plea was entered and accepted in part, it seems, to prevent E (the child complainant) to have to give evidence at a retrial. It is for this reason that what would otherwise have been a case involving alleged sexual offences was transmuted into one concerning offences against the person. This was arguably artificial, and (as the discussion above about the Court of Appeal’s comments about the nature of PM’s duty shows) has resulted in – it is suggested – flawed reasoning.

Finally, although it wasn’t addressed in the Court of Appeal’s judgment, there remains the question of knowledge and scientific evidence of transmission. What follows is speculative in the instant case, but important, I think, to bear in mind.

1. PM moved in with E and Z and their mother in September 2005. He was diagnosed with gonorrhoea in November 2005 and the children in December 2005. If there is any possibility that PM may have infected E and Z prior to his diagnosis, and before he had any reason to believe that he might be suffering from gonorrhoea, there was no case to answer (see R v Dica; R v Konzani).
2. If, as the Court of Appeal accepted (albeit because of the “artificial” nature of the settlement that was reached on plea to avoid retrial) that gonorrhoea may be spread manually as the result of poor manual hygiene, then questions should have been raised as to the possibility that the source of the infection may have been elsewhere. There appears to have been no scientific evidence adduced, and the prosecution did not – it appears – seek any. The CPS Guidelines make it clear that there needs to be compelling proof that the defendant is the source of a complainant’s infection – and (critically) that a guilty pleas should not be accepted unless the prosecution believes that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Cases involving HIV transmission have fallen because of this.

The Marangwanda case is unfortunate because it appears to be yet another example of the ways in which the ill-thought out approach of the courts to liability for the transmission of sexually transmissible diseases can – in the absence of clear thinking and understanding – have unintended effects.

Matthew Weait
23rd April 2009

UK: Developing guidance for HIV prosecutions: an example of harm reduction?

I’m including an excerpt here – the conclusion, actually – of an excellent article by Yusef Azad of the National AIDS Trust, in the July issue of the HIV/AIDS Policy and Law Review, published by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, which describes the way the HIV sector managed to successfully intervene and manage the harm of criminal prosecutions in England & Wales for ‘reckless’ HIV transmission following an initial period of shock and panic.

By persuading the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consult with the community on the production of a policy statement, as well as legal guidance for prosecutors and caseworkers in this area of law, he argues that this was pragmatic ‘harm reduction’. Certainly, the process has resulted in a much higher burden of proof of transmission and guilt, and there have been no successful prosecutions since an African migrant living in Bournemouth pleaded guilty in January 2007.

Since then, three cases have been dismissed by a judge in pretrial hearings, including two gay cases (in Preston in April 2007 and Cardiff in May 2008) and one heterosexual case (in Manchester in October 2007). These prosecutions all failed because the men had the same informed solicitor who successfully argued that the CPS failed to provide uneqivocal proof that the defendant, and only the defendant, could have, in fact, infected the complainant(s). Although the CPS guidance was only published in March 2008, even the existence of draft versions was enough to persuade the judge in the earlier two cases.

The full article, ‘Developing guidance for HIV prosecutions: an example of harm reduction?’, can be found here.

Judging success depends a lot on one’s initial expectations. The CPS were not in a position to end prosecutions for reckless transmission or disagree with the interpretation of the OAPA 1861 as set out by the Court of Appeal.

What they could do — and what they did do — was consider in greater depth, and on the basis of detailed evidence, what is required to prove responsibility for infection, knowledge, recklessness and appropriate use of safeguards. An informed understanding of these elements has, even in the context of current criminal law, resulted in fewer and fairer prosecutions.

As the CPS says in its Policy Statement, “[O]btaining sufficient evidence to prove the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection will be difficult … accordingly it is unlikely that there will be many prosecutions.” Therefore, we should consider this to be a successful example of policy intervention as harm reduction.

It was not without its risks. Success was due to a number of factors, not least of which was a CPS that was already committed to taking seriously the concerns and experiences of affected communities when considering prosecutions in socially sensitive areas of law.

Some jurisdictions will not have such an enlightened prosecution service, and so the HIV sector will need to start further back in terms of engaging with the authorities. But it may be possible, even given the different legal contexts of different countries, to use the CPS Guidance to help bring about improvements in practice elsewhere.

The process was helped immensely by the commitment from an extraordinarily wide range of partners within the HIV sector, encompassing NGOs, academics, clinicians, virologists and, above all, people living with HIV.

Although harm may be reduced, it has not been ended — prosecutions for reckless HIV transmission remain and will continue. There is an urgent need to restate the ethical and policy case against such prosecutions and to consider freshly how and when we might engage with political decisionmakers on this issue.

UK: Long-awaited guidelines for prosecuting criminal HIV transmission published

It has taken a year longer than anticipated, but the Crown Prosecution Service for England & Wales has finally published their policy on prosecuting criminal HIV transmission.

Thankfully, the document bears almost no relation to the draft version originally published in September 2006, following consultation with HIV experts and advocates.

Naturally, then, a (right wing) think-tank quoted in the (right wing) Daily Mail believes the CPS is being too lenient.

Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, warned that the new rules would encourage risky behaviour among those with HIV.

“Someone who has sex in those circumstances is subjecting the other person to a potentially deadly illness and to suffering over a long period of time,” he added.

“These rules are too lenient, and they will lead people to think they will not be prosecuted.”

On the other hand, my story for, includes criticism from academic and practicing lawyers who think the guidance is wishy-washy (HIV is never mentioned by name), vague (condoms are never mentioned by name) and fails to elucidate any further on the real question we all really, really want to know: under what circumstances is someone likely to be prosecuted for reckless HIV transmission?

The Daily Mail story, and my aidsmap story, are below (for balance).

Interestingly, the Daily Mail changed its story (the original is now gone forever, sadly) within hours of its publications from being quite surprisingly balanced, to one that seems to wish the CPS guidelines had changed the law and made all unprotected sex by HIV-positive people a criminal act. I should also warn that if you click on the link to the Daily Mail website, you will see one of the most offensive (and laughably reactionary) comments I’ve ever read.

HIV carriers could escape jail for passing on infections to others
Last updated at 10:47am on 15th March 2008

Anyone deliberately infecting a sexual partner with HIV through a one-off encounter should not be charged with a crime, prosecutors ruled yesterday.

A single sexual incident will not count as evidence that they have deliberately tried to infect their partner with the virus, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

Cases of intentional or reckless transmission of sexual infection will only be brought against those who have infected a series of partners, or have infected one partner during a period of regular risky sex.

The rules were set out to clarify the law on reckless infection and to guide prosecutors on how to deal with a crime that can lead to a life sentence for those convicted.

They also said that those accused of reckless HIV infection are themselves “victims”, because they suffer from a devastating condition.

Eleven defendants have been taken to court in England for transmission of the Aids virus.

Ten of the cases ended in a conviction. Defendants are charged with causing grievous bodily harm under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.

The first person to be jailed for infecting partners was given eight years in 2003 for infecting two women.

The sentence on Mohammed Dica, a married father-of-three, was cut to four and a half years after a re-trial found that he had deliberately infected only one woman.

The guidance, set out in a CPS policy document, said it would be necessary to prove a “sustained course of conduct” in order to find a defendant guilty – in other words a single sexual encounter does not amount to a crime.

“It will be highly unlikely that the prosecution will be able to demonstrate the required degree of recklessness in factual circumstances other than a sustained course of conduct during which the defendant ignores current scientific advice regarding the need for and the use of safeguards, thereby increasing the risk of infection to an unacceptable level,” it said.

The document also said: “We appreciate too that those who are defendants in these cases may be seen as victims themselves, as they also have the infection that they are alleged to have transmitted to another person.”

The statement set out a series of other reasons for prosecutors to be cautious before bringing charges.

Those newly told that they have an infection could be in a state of shock or might not have fully understood the diagnosis.

Prosecutors were told that someone who spread a sexual infection could also have a defence to a charge if the victim knew of their infected status.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said: “Although these types of cases are rare, we are publishing this statement because we recognise the importance of consistent decision-making. We hope that it provides clarity.”

Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, warned that the new rules would encourage risky behaviour among those with HIV.

“Someone who has sex in those circumstances is subjecting the other person to a potentially deadly illness and to suffering over a long period of time,” he added.

“These rules are too lenient, and they will lead people to think they will not be prosecuted.”

Guidelines on prosecuting criminal HIV transmission for England & Wales finally published
Edwin J. Bernard, Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Last Friday, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for England and Wales published its long-awaited policy statement and legal guidance for prosecutors for cases involving the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of serious infection.

Although the policy statement (which can be read here) and legal guidance (which can be read here) have generally been welcomed by the two major HIV policy organisations, because they clarify some of the uncertainties that have surrounded prosecutions for reckless HIV transmission, some legal experts say the documents are vague – for example, neither HIV nor condoms are specifically mentioned – and leave important questions unanswered.

The CPS issued the first draft of its policy statement in September 2006. Following widespread criticism of both the policy and CPS’ lack of understanding regarding issues of harm, transmission and the relationship between scientific evidence and causation, the policy went back to the drawing board, missing its original February 2007 deadline.

“We have consulted widely on the development of this policy statement and have benefited substantially from listening to the views and concerns of others,” the latest CPS policy statement notes. “We have greatly appreciated their input; however, the content of this policy statement is the responsibility of the CPS alone.”

“We are publishing this statement because we recognise the importance of, and the need for, consistent decision-making,” it continues. “We also recognise the potential tension between public health and criminal justice considerations. However, the criminal law exists in part to protect those who are the victims of unlawful conduct by others, including through the unlawful transmission of sexual infection.”

Of note, the guidance does not specifically mention HIV, although all thirteen prosecutions that have taken place in England & Wales since 2003 have been for reckless HIV transmission.

What is clarified?
Two national HIV policy organisations, Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) and the National AIDS Trust (NAT) have already published documents providing initial, brief explanations of how the CPS policy may apply to reckless and intentional HIV transmission. (The THT document can be downloaded here, and the NAT document can be downloaded here.)

In short, the policy clarifies that:

  • Prosecutions are likely to talk place within relationships, and not as a result of one-off sexual encounters. “It will be highly unlikely that the prosecution will be able to demonstrate the required degree of recklessness in factual circumstances other than a sustained course of conduct during which the defendant ignores current scientific advice regarding the need for and the use of safeguards,” it says in the legal guidance for prosecutors.
  • Scientific evidence must be used to show that the defendant infected the complainant, but that this evidence alone cannot conclusively prove the responsibility of the defendant for the complainant’s infection. “The prosecutor will need to be satisfied that the complainant did not receive the infection from a third party or that the complainant did not infect the defendant,” it says in the legal guidance for prosecutors. “This means that the prosecutor will need to know about any possibility which is compatible with the scientific evidence that the complainant was infected by a third party. This means enquiries will have to be made about the relevant sexual behaviour and relevant sexual history of the complainant.
  • The defendant has to have known they were infected when transmission took place to be convicted, although there are some other, very limited circumstances (termed ‘wilful blindness’ e.g. where someone has refused to test despite explicit clinical advice to do so because of symptoms) that could result in prosecution and conviction.
  • In order to be convicted, the CPS must prove that that the defendant understood that they were infectious to other people as well as understood how the particular infection is transmitted.
  • Informed consent of the complainant to the risk of HIV infection is a defence against a charge of reckless HIV transmission. Disclosure is one way of informing the complainant, but the CPS will allow for other possible ways in which the complainant might have been ‘informed’ of the defendant’s HIV status – whether from a third party, or a hospital visit, or from obvious symptoms of infection.
  • Consistent condom use is a defence against a charge of reckless HIV transmission. However, the word ‘safeguards’ is used, rather than condoms, because it appears that the CPS is trying to cover a wide range of differently transmissible conditions.
  • Transmission must take place for a recklessness charge. There is no crime of ‘attempted reckless transmission’. THT says it has “seen a number of cases where local CPS officers have tried to bring non-existent charges, mainly of ‘attempted recklessness’, which is clearly nonsense. All such cases have foundered upon reaching court. It is very helpful that the CPS have stated clearly that this is not appropriate. However, it is possible to bring a charge of attempted intentional transmission, and there is no defence of consent available in charges of intent. To date, nobody has been successfully prosecuted for intentional transmission.”

Positive responses
The CPS policy document says in its conclusion that, “cases involving the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection may raise very difficult and highly sensitive issues. We recognise that obtaining sufficient evidence to prove the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection will be difficult and that accordingly it is unlikely that there will be many prosecutions.”

Both THT and NAT – who along with the African HIV Policy Network, the British HIV Association, Positively Women and the (now defunct) UKC – were consulted on the policy document, cautiously welcome its publication.

“For years now we have seen huge variations in how justice has been administered in this area of the law. This has caused problems for police, courts and people caught up in prosecutions.” said THT’s Head of Policy, Lisa Power. “The new CPS guidance will go a long way towards removing confusion, cutting the most inappropriate investigations short and clarifying where people with HIV and other STIs stand if they transmit them.”

NAT’s Chief Executive, Deborah Jack, notes that, “this new guidance from the CPS is helpful in clarifying the prosecution process. The level of evidence needed to prove intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection has rightly been set very high and it is unlikely that there will be many prosecutions. However whilst prosecutions continue the National AIDS Trust will work to ensure the best possible advice is available to prosecutors, lawyers, police, support organisations, healthcare workers and people living with HIV.”

‘Disappointing’ and vague
However, academic lawyer, James Chalmers, Senior Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh School of Law, says that, “it’s disappointing that the CPS are too coy to use the word ‘condom’ in the document… In terms of intelligible public guidance it leaves a lot to be desired.”

He also criticises the document for leaving the most important question unanswered. “Aside from acknowledging the importance of scientific evidence, I don’t think the document takes us much further forward,” he tells When you strip out the guidance as to what the law is, you’re not left with very much of a guide as to when the law will be used. The difficult question was always ‘when will the CPS consider it in the public interest to prosecute?’ and that question is left unanswered.”

And defence lawyer, Khurram Arif, of London solicitors, Hodge Jones & Allen, who has successully defended three clients against reckless HIV transmission charges, notes that, although “it is encouraging to see that the guidelines actually specify that scientific and medical evidence should be gathered as part of the investigation,
I think the CPS will always get stuck on the point of causation.”

In addition, both THT and NAT admit they are disappointed with various parts of the guidance. “The CPS are less clear about condom breakage during sex. THT believes it should be an adequate defence, if a condom is found to have broken during sex and HIV transmission occurs as a result, for the defendant to have promptly advised their partner to get PEP. We will be pressing for further clarity on this.”

Yusef Azad, NAT’s Director of Policy and Campaigns, also tells aidsmap that he is disappointed that “there is no definition of what constitutes reckless behaviour in relation to HIV transmission. In some ways this could be a good thing [because] at least we don’t have an incorrect or unhelpful definition. But the CPS leave it instead to individual clinicians to advise in each case with a worrying possibility of inconsistent approaches and clinicians simply rehearsing their own ethical opinions rather than providing obejective expert advice.”

Finally, it should be noted that the CPS only become involved once a case has been investigated by the police, and that so far there is no guidance for the police in this area. Khurram Arif points out that in his experience, “I have not come across many [police] officers who are familiar with any CPS guidelines.”

However, both NAT and THT plan to work with the Association of Chief Police Officers to help create a more unified – and better-understood – criminal justice system policy now that the CPS guidance has been published.