New principles lay out human rights-based approach to criminal law

New legal principles launched on International Women’s Day to advance decriminalization efforts

The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.

The ‘8 March principles’ as they are called lay out a human rights-based approach to laws criminalising conduct in relation to sex, drug use, HIV, sexual and reproductive health, homelessness and poverty.

Ian Seiderman, Law and Policy Director at ICJ said, “Criminal law is among the harshest of tools at the disposal of the State to exert control over individuals…as such, it ought to be a measure of last resort however, globally, there has been a growing trend towards overcriminalization.”

“We must acknowledge that these laws not only violate human rights, but the fundamental principles of criminal law themselves,” he said.

For Edwin Cameron, former South Africa Justice of the Constitutional Court and current Inspecting Judge for the South African Correctional Services, the principles are of immediate pertinence and use for judges, legislators, policymakers, civil society and academics. “The 8 March principles provide a clear, accessible and practical legal framework based on international criminal law and international human rights law,” he said.

The principles are the outcome of a 2018 workshop organized by UNAIDS and OHCHR along with the ICJ to discuss the role of jurists in addressing the harmful human rights impact of criminal laws. The meeting resulted in a call for a set of jurists’ principles to assist the courts, legislatures, advocates and prosecutors to address the detrimental human rights impact of such laws.

The principles, developed over five years, are based on feedback and reviews from a range of experts and stakeholders. They were finalized in 2022. Initially, the principles focused on the impact of criminal laws proscribing sexual and reproductive health and rights, consensual sexual activity, gender identity, gender expression, HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission, drug use and the possession of drugs for personal use. Later, based on the inputs of civil society and other stakeholders, criminalization linked to homelessness and poverty were also included.

Continued overuse of criminal law by governments and in some cases arbitrary and discriminatory criminal laws have led to a number of human rights violations. They also perpetuate stigma, harmful gender stereotypes and discrimination based on such grounds as gender or sexual orientation.

In 2023, twenty countries criminalize or otherwise prosecute transgender people, 67 countries still criminalize same-sex sexual activity, 115 report criminalizing drug use, more than 130 criminalize HIV exposure, non-disclosure and transmission and over 150 countries criminalize some aspect of sex work.

In the world of HIV, the abuse and misuse of criminal laws not only affects the right to health, but a multitude of rights including: to be free from discrimination, to housing, security of the person, movement, family, privacy and bodily autonomy, and in extreme cases the very right to life. In countries where sex work is criminalized, for example, sex workers are seven times more likely to be living with HIV than where it is partially legalized. To be criminalized can also mean being deprived of the protection of the law and law enforcement. And yet, criminalized communities, particularly women, are often more likely to need the very protection they are denied.

UNAIDS Deputy Executive Director for the Policy, Advocacy and Knowledge Branch, Christine Stegling said, “I welcome the fact that these principles are being launched on International Women’s Day (IWD), in recognition of the detrimental effects criminal law can, and too often does have on women in all their diversity.”

“We will not end AIDS as a public health threat as long as these pernicious laws remain,” she added. “These principles will be of great use to us and our partners in our endeavors.”

Also remarking on the significance of IWD, Volker Türk, High Commissioner for Human Rights, said, “Today is an opportunity for all of us to think about power and male dominated systems.”

His remarks ended with, “I am glad that you have done this work, we need to use it and we need to use it also in a much more political context when it comes precisely to counter these power dynamics.”

“Frankly we need to ask these questions and make sure that they are part and parcel going forward as to what human rights means,” he said.

In conclusion, Phelister Abdalla, President of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, based in Kenya noted: “When sex work is criminalized it sends the message that sex workers can be abused…We are human beings and sex workers are entitled to all human rights.”

US: Bill put forward in Minnesota would repeal HIV criminalisation law

Democrats propose repealing law against knowingly exposing someone to HIV

Five Minnesota House Democrats are proposing eliminating the law that makes it a crime to knowingly expose someone to HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases.

The lawmakers’ bill (HF267) would repeal a 1995 law that allows prosecutors to charge someone who “knowingly harbors an infectious agent” and engages in behaviors that could transfer it to another person, such as through sex, sharing needles or by donating blood, sperm or organs. A person who takes steps to prevent transmission, as advised by health professionals, is not guilty of a crime under the law.

“This is part of a national — really international — movement to repeal laws that criminalize HIV,” said Rep. Leigh Finke, DFL-St. Paul. “These are old, outdated, homophobic statutes.”

Laws criminalizing the spread of HIV are not uncommon. Most were enacted at the height of the AIDS epidemic in the late 1980s and 1990s. Thirty-five states have laws that criminalize exposing others to HIV without their consent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The laws were enacted before the development of antiretroviral treatments, which can reduce the presence of HIV so much that it is undetectable and untransmittable. Many laws don’t account for those developments or else reflect the limited understanding people had at the time of HIV transmission by criminalizing actions like spitting or oral sex.

The CDC as well as the Department of Justice advise that states repeal those laws or “modernize” them, noting that they have not been shown to be effective in curbing the spread of HIV. The laws may even be counterproductive by disincentivizing people from getting tested and knowing their status.

Minnesota’s current law largely conforms to what the CDC recommends, however. The law applies to all communicable diseases, not just HIV. The law does not apply to people who take preventative measures such as wearing a condom or taking a viral suppression medication. And the law does apply to acts that don’t lead to transmission like spitting or oral sex.

While criminal cases are rare, they do occur. In the past five years, four people have been charged in Minnesota courts with knowingly transferring a disease, one of whom was convicted.

In 2018, Simon Santiago Vicente was charged with two felonies for raping a 20-year-old woman in the restaurant he managed in Lino Lakes. The woman called 911 during the attack and dispatchers reported hearing her say “no” repeatedly.

Police arrived and found Vicente on top of the woman in one of the booths. After being arrested and taken to the Anoka County jail, Vicente reported that he is HIV positive and had not been taking medications to treat it since 2016.

Vicente ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 62 months in prison for criminal sexual conduct and 55 months for transferring a communicable disease. The sentences were concurrent, so Vicente won’t serve additional time in prison because he transferred HIV.

Asked about that case, Finke said: “I think convicting a rapist for rape is sufficient.”

“I don’t think there’s a meaningful reason for us to have statutes that criminalize a rapist because that rapist has HIV. He’s a rapist and should be criminalized for rape,” she said.

Even if the law were repealed, prosecutors may still be able to seek longer sentences in sexual assault cases that result in victims contracting a communicable disease by arguing it is an aggravating factor.

The bill is co-authored by Democratic Reps. Athena Hollins of St. Paul, Jessica Hanson of Burnsville, Alicia Kozlowski of Duluth and Brion Curran of Vadnais Heights.

US: New bill would repeal Minnesota’s criminal statute on HIV exposure and transmission

HF 267, a bill that would repeal Minnesota’s criminal penalties for “transmission of a communicable disease from one person who knowingly harbors the agent to another”, has been introduced on January 11 and will be sent to the House’s Public Safety Committee for debate.

Current Minnesota law makes it a crime to knowingly engage in behaviour deemed to be a possible mean of transmission of a communicable disease via sexual intercourse, blood, sperm, organ or tissue donation, or sharing of needles or syringes for the purpose of injecting drugs.

 

Ukraine: New protective HIV law adopted, but criminal liability for HIV exposure or transmission remains

The Parliament of Ukraine has adopted the Bill “On amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On combating the spread of diseases caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and on legal and social protection of people living with HIV”, which applies modern approaches to HIV prevention, testing and treatment based on WHO guidelines.

Barriers to HIV testing have been reduced by enshrining in law the long-standing practice that testing can be carried out by non-governmental organisations on a peer-to-peer basis.

The archaic concept of ‘risk groups’ has been abolished, with the law referring instead to practices that may involve some risk. There are also key populations to which the state should direct its efforts to prevent the spread of HIV.

From now on, a person is considered to be “living with HIV” only from the moment of laboratory confirmation of the diagnosis. If a rapid test shows that you have HIV antibodies, you are not yet considered to be living with HIV.

The law guarantees universal access to HIV services regardless of legal status in Ukraine, which is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is introduced into the legal sphere

Self-testing is introduced into legislation: you can test yourself for HIV – on your own or with the help of a counsellor.

Minors can get tested on their own initiative from the age of 14 (under 14 – at the request of their parents).

Every blood donation will be subject to an HIV test before it can be used – this is now part of the law.

The law explicitly prohibits the humiliation of people on the basis of belonging to various key populations, such as MSMs.

New progressive regulations will be adopted at the Ministry of Health level, on testing procedures, diagnosis, etc.

All of the above are innovations from draft law 6364, which was adopted as a whole by the Verkhovna Rada at its first plenary session this year.

The new law is the result of many years of efforts by many governmental and non-governmental partners, including the Centre for Public Health of Ukraine, 100% Life – PLWH Network, UNAIDS and many others, as well as community organisations such as the All-Ukrainian Association of People with Drug Addiction, Positive Women, the National LGBTI Consortium, Legalife-Ukraine.

 

US: New bill in North Dakota aims to modernise outdated HIV-criminalisation law

Letter: North Dakota has a chance to destigmatize HIV and AIDS

Opinion:

“Folks living with HIV/AIDS are valuable contributors to their families, communities, and warrant equal treatment under the law,” Fargo resident Kara Gloe writes.

House Bill 1281 is an opportunity to right a wrong. The current law is discriminatory and codifies stigma faced by people living with HIV/AIDS. Similar laws don’t exist for herpes, hepatitis or other STIs with no cure. Considering there have only been three convictions under this law, it’s a solution to a problem North Dakota has never had. Frankly, it does more harm than good.

As a mental health therapist serving people living with HIV/AIDS in North Dakota, every client discusses the stigma. For many, someone discovering their status without their consent is a fear constantly running through their minds. For many, it is or has been the reason they are isolated, stuck in unhealthy relationships, suffer from substance use disorder, etc. It’s a major contributing factor to depression, anxiety and/or has caused or contributed to trauma. It is the reason they stopped attending church or have lost their community. I have heard how others’ ignorance plagues my clients, either as thousands of paper cuts or as full frontal emotional and psychological assaults.

Medical advances take us further away from the AIDS epidemic and failed health policy of the 1980s. HIV is no longer a terminal illness, but rather a manageable long-term disease not unlike diabetes. People having access to resources needed to heal trauma and develop coping skills for thriving, instead of just surviving, benefits everyone. Folks living with HIV/AIDS are valuable contributors to their families, communities, and warrant equal treatment under the law. I hope North Dakota legislators and their constituents will send the message that North Dakotans agree.

 

US: Bill to modernise Indiana HIV laws advances to the full House

Legislation to modernize Indiana’s HIV laws clears House committee

People with HIV would no longer be subject to harsher criminal penalties under legislation that advanced out of a House committee Wednesday.

If you put your bodily fluid or waste on someone – like, say, spitting on them – it’s a misdemeanor in Indiana. But laws passed decades ago said that if you know you have HIV, it becomes a felony.

Carrie Foote said such laws reflect an outdated understanding of how HIV spreads. Foote, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1988, leads the state’s HIV Modernization Movement.

“HIV is not transmitted that way,” Foote said. “HIV is transmitted in very specific ways: sexually or if you share intravenous drugs with somebody.”

The measure, HB 1198, initially got rid of harsher penalties for putting bodily fluid on a law enforcement officer when you have HIV.

The statewide police union, represented by Ed Merchant, didn’t like that. He said police prefer the law the way it is – even if officers aren’t at risk from contracting HIV from things like spit.

“This provides our officers with better cover,” Merchant said. “It penalizes – it makes a felony for doing that.”

Rep. Wendy McNamara (R-Evansville) attempted a compromise – the bill now leaves in a felony if a person with HIV puts blood on a public safety official.

Other parts of the bill completely eliminate criminal penalties for donating blood or semen when you know you have HIV. Advocates said testing has eliminated the risks of such donations – and people with HIV can even be organ donors now.

More importantly, Dr. David Welsh said, those criminal penalties cause people to avoid getting tested for HIV in the first place – if they don’t know they have the virus, they can’t get charged.

Welsh represents the Indiana State Medical Association.

“Outdated laws can interfere with how we interact with our patients and can cause patients to distrust their physicians,” Welsh said.

The bill does make it a felony if a person with HIV isn’t following a treatment plan provided by a doctor and shares a needle or makes sexual contact with someone else without telling them they have HIV.

The measure is headed to the full House.

Kenya: Petitioners intend to appeal High Court decision to dismiss challenge to the criminalisation of HIV transmission

KELIN disappointed by High Court judgment in HIV criminalisation case

The Kenya Legal and Ethical Issues Network on HIV & AIDS (“KELIN”) is disappointed with the Nairobi High Court’s decision dismissing Petition 447 of 2018.

The Petition was filed in December 2018. It asked that the Court declare section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act 3 of 2006 to be unconstitutional, void and invalid, and therefore struck from the law. This law criminalises deliberate transmission and or exposure of life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

On 20 December 2022, Justice Ong’udi in the Nairobi High Court dismissed the Petition, upholding the law’s constitutionality.

“We are disappointed with both the outcome and the Court’s process,” said Mr Allan Maleche, the Executive Director of KELIN. “The judgment failed to consider the undisputed expert evidence. That evidence showed how this law, and its application, are not only contrary to international scientific consensus on the nature and risk of HIV transmission, but that it is also harmful to proven strategies to prevent and treat HIV effectively”, he said.

Ms Nerima Were, KELIN’s Head of Programmes, said that in addition, KELIN regretted that the Court elected not to have an oral hearing and instead decided the case on the papers only. It also declined to consider the amici curiae’s submissions, despite that they had previously been admitted as friends of the Court on 27 January 2020. Ms Were said that “For such an important case, where understanding HIV science was critical to ensuring justice, the Court would have benefitted from hearing the Petitioners and counsel, and from considering the international expertise of the friends of the court, UNAIDS and HIV Justice Worldwide.”

Mr Maleche said that while the judgment somewhat narrows the interpretation of the offence, for as long as it remains on the books, it will continue to obstruct an effective HIV response. The Petitioners intend to appeal the judgment.

Who were the parties?

The petitioners were KELIN, people living with HIV and an HIV-negative spouse.

  • The first petitioner was a man living with HIV who had been charged with a crime under section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act for allegedly biting a police officer’s thumb during his arrest.
  • The second petitioner was a woman living with HIV who was on HIV treatment and had an undetectable viral load. She was charged under section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act after being falsely accused of breastfeeding another person’s child.
  • The third petitioner was a woman living with HIV. After she disclosed her HIV-positive status to her spouse, he violently assaulted her and threatened to report her to the police under section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act.
  • The fourth petitioner was a woman living with HIV who was married to the fifth petitioner, who is HIV-negative. The sixth petitioner was similarly a woman living with HIV who was married to an HIV-negative spouse. These petitioners were concerned that the HIV-positive spouses risked prosecution under section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act, even though they were all aware of each other’s HIV-statuses, and that the HIV-positive spouses were on treatment and taking precautions to prevent transmission.

The respondents were the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecution (“DPP”).

The National AIDS Control Council (“NACC”) joined as an interested party.

There were two friends of the court (or amici curiae): the Joint United National Programme on HIV and AIDS (“UNAIDS”) and HIV Justice Worldwide (“HJWW”) (“the friends of the Court”).

What were the parties’ arguments?

The Petitioners argued that section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act infringes the principle of legality because it is vague and arbitrarily enforced. They demonstrated that – by virtue of the law’s vague language – it is being applied in circumstances where there is scientifically a minimal or no risk of HIV transmission, and in circumstances where there is no established intent to transmit HIV.

The Petitioners demonstrated that section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act had been used to harass and extort people living with HIV, to test them without informed consent, as a tool of gender-based violence against women living with HIV, to publicise people’s confidential health information unjustifiably, and to advance HIV stigma and misinformation.

The Petitioners argued that the law therefore infringes constitutionally protected rights unjustifiably, including article 28 (the right to inherent dignity), article 29(f) (the right to freedom and security of the person), article 27 (the right to freedom from discrimination), article 49(1)(d) (the rights of arrested persons), article 50(1) (the right to a fair trial), article 31 (the right to privacy), and article 45 (the right to family).

The Petitioners provided undisputed expert evidence to show that the law did not prevent HIV transmission.

The Attorney General, with the support of the DPP, opposed the Petition. He argued that section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act was not unconstitutional and was clear and unambiguous.

The NACC also opposed the Petition. It argued that the law properly aimed to punish people who deliberately infect other people and did not infringe any constitutional rights.

HJWW and UNAIDS were admitted as friends of the Court on 27 January 2020. HJWW provided an international context to HIV criminalisation generally and to section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act specifically. UNAIDS sought to provide the court with information on international standards, policies and recommendations regarding the use of criminal law against HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission. The Court declined to consider the submissions of the friends of the court.

What was the court’s decision?

The High Court dismissed the Petition.

It considered that it was beyond its mandate to consider the undisputed evidence that the law undermined public health interventions and efforts to prevent HIV transmission.

The Court did not consider that section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act was unconstitutional. It held that, properly interpreted, an offence is only committed if a person has actual knowledge of their HIV status, and intentionally, knowingly and wilfully does infects a person with HIV or other sexually transmitted disease. It therefore did not consider the provision vague or ambiguous.

It held further that the Petitioners had not shown that section 26 of the Act violated their constitutional rights.

The Court nonetheless acknowledged that the Petitioners had “clearly showcased” that the law had been used to “harass and charge them wrongfully” as people living with HIV. It held that the Petitioners were at liberty to seek redress for any non-compliance by the authorities with the law.

It held that a person’s HIV-positive status should never be announced in open Court or published in order to protect the dignity of the person concerned.

What is the effect of the High Court’s decision?

The Court’s decision means that, unless the judgment is successfully overturned on appeal, section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act remains valid law in Kenya.

The Court has confirmed, however, that the offence should be restrictively applied only where three elements are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

  • First, the perpetrator must act intentionally and with a specific intention to infect another person;
  • Second, the perpetrator must have actual knowledge of their HIV status; and
  • Third, the prosecution must prove that the perpetrator actually infected the other person with HIV.

The Petitioners have a right appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

US: New bill in Indiana would remove sentence enhancements and criminal offences related to HIV

Indiana has harsher legal penalties for those living with HIV. A bill would change that.

Getting diagnosed with HIV was a death sentence in 1988, when Carrie Foote was 18 years old.

Thirty-five years later, the sociology professor at IUPUI has only the normal quirks of aging to worry about. Her chronic disease, with advancements in medicine, is entirely manageable with treatment.

But Indiana’s laws haven’t caught up to this reality. Laws on the books since the 1980s single out people living with HIV and give them stiffer penalties for certain acts, from donating blood or semen to spitting on another individual, despite advancements in scientific knowledge on how HIV is transmitted. Lawmakers are attempting for the fourth year to rectify the disparity, and have gained more support than in previous years.

“All we’re saying is just treat us fairly,” Foote told IndyStar after House Bill 1198’s first hearing Wednesday.

The bill, written by Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Evansville, proposes eliminating the part of Indiana law that says those who know they have HIV and donate blood or semen can be punished with a felony. Clinical studies since this law was written have shown that people who undergo treatment can achieve an undetectable amount of HIV in their blood stream, which means they aren’t able to transmit HIV to other people. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration tests all donated blood and throws out any with traces of infectious disease.

Under existing law, purposefully spitting or putting some other bodily fluid, like feces, on another person is a misdemeanor. But it’s a felony for those who have HIV. The bill proposes removing the enhanced sentence for people living with HIV, as the modern scientific consensus shows these kinds of fluids do not transmit HIV, according to the CDC.

This is the fourth session where such a bill has been introduced. After hearing testimony Wednesday, the Courts and Criminal Code committee held the bill for a vote next week.

Foote, who chairs the statewide HIV Modernization Movement, said progress has been made every year in the Statehouse, starting with the removal or modernization of some language in the law that stigmatized people living with HIV ― changing “carrier” into “person with a communicable disease,” for example. The movement is a coalition of health providers, public health authorities, community leaders, legal experts and people living with HIV that formed in 2016 to work toward changing state laws.

This year, the bill gained new support from the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. The council was swayed by testimony from Indiana Department of Health and Eskinazi Hospital officials during a summer study committee on the advancements in medical knowledge of how HIV is transmitted, assistant executive director Courtney Curtis said.

The council then researched how often it files charges related to these parts of the law. Indiana prosecutors haven’t filed any charges related to HIV-positive blood donors since at least 2015, and have only done so ten times in the law’s history, she said. They charge more cases relating to assault with bodily fluids, but this charge is not “clogging up our system,” she said.

Lawmakers do plan to work with the council to tighten up language in a section of the bill to ensure it meshes cleanly with Indiana code before next week’s vote.

In a study of court case filings from 2015 to 2022 by IUPUI and the UCLA School of Law, 98% of the 130 cases of battery by bodily fluid involved acts that cannot transmit HIV. The other 2% involved sex, which carries the risk of transmission if a person has a detectable amount of HIV in their system.

The persistent stigma affects people of color more. Though Black people made up 13% of the U.S. population in 2019, they made up 40% of the population of people living with HIV, according to the CDC. Only 9% of Black people who were eligible for HIV prevention treatment actually got it in 2020, compared to 65% of white people.

Tony Gillespie, vice president of the Indiana Minority Health Coalition, remembers a time when the city of Gary, where he’s from, had no services for Black gay men living with HIV. Having now lived with HIV for 30 years, he said he’s encouraged by the progress made in both Gary and with this legislation.

“I’m encouraged because this is such a move in the right direction in making science-based decisions and not fear-based,” he said.

The bill is met with skepticism from the Indiana state police union. Legal representative Ed Merchant said the Fraternal Order of Police is opposed to eliminating the enhanced charge for people with HIV who, for example, spit on an officer. The bill would keep in place the part of the law that says those with an intent to harm someone else can be charged with a felony, but Merchant said the FOP believes existing law gives officers “better cover.”

Indiana remains one of 35 states that have laws criminalizing HIV exposure as of late 2022, according to the CDC.

McNamara attributes this to a generational stigma rooted in fear-mongering from the 1980s and 90s. Anyone growing up at that time remembers turning on the TV and hearing about people dying from HIV/AIDS, she said.

“That fear predominates a lot of the mindset of my generation,” she said. “And I think that’s what makes it hard.”

Kenya: High Court dismisses petition challenging the constitutionality of HIV criminalisation

Disappointment as High Court Dismisses Case Challenging Criminalisation of HIV transmission

Nairobi, 20th December 2022. The High Court has dealt a blow to the fight against the HIV response, by dismissing a petition that challenged the criminalisation of all forms of deliberate transmission of HIV. Hon. Lady Justice Hedwig Ong’udi dismissed the petition on the grounds, the petitioners had not met the threshold to have the section declared unconstitutional. Further she noted that Section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act(SOA), does not refer to all people living with HIV, but rather those who deliberately and knowingly transmit HIV.

Had the court upheld the petition Kenya who have been removed from the list of the 30 sub-Saharan nations  and the 92 countries globally, who have enacted and enforced laws that criminalise HIV exposure and infection.

The petition filed by KELIN, and 6 other petitioners, who included people living with HIV, challenged the constitutionality of Section 26 of the SOA. This law criminalizes the deliberate transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. The Petitioners had based their petition on the factual and lived experiences of each of the first six petitioners, all of whom have been adversely affected by the discriminatory application of this section yet had not been engaged in any sexual offences.

The Attorney General together with the National AIDS Control Council had opposed the petition arguing the section was constitutional as it was necessary to curb deliberate transmission due to the continued presence of HIV in Africa. It further argued that the rights of persons living or affected by HIV are not absolute, and that these must be weighed and interpreted with limitations provided under the Constitution.

As at the time of publishing this news alert, the court judgment had yet to be released to the parties. We look forward to receiving the court decision to better understand the court’s reasoning as well as determine a way forward.   A further statement will be issued in due course.

Links to pleadings

Petition

Submissions

Supplementary submissions

AG submissions