New Zealand: Court of Appeal rules HIV non-disclosure is sexual assault

Update(s): 12/13th March 2012

The New Zealand Court of Appeal has ruled that otherwise consensual unprotected sex without disclosure of known HIV-positive vitiates consent, meaning that potential HIV exposure (non-disclosure without transmission) could well be upgraded from criminal nuisance to sexual assault in future criminal cases.

The ruling is the result of a long-running civil liability compensation suit from the female complainant in a 2005 New Zealand case. See my original post from 2009, below, for details of the case.

Although the ruling relates to a civil suit and not the criminal law, it provides “a really good steer” for police, prosecutors and judges to use the ruling in future criminal cases, according to the New Zealand Law Society’s Jonathan Krebs, interviewed on Radio New Zealand about the case.

The ruling was reported today in The Dominion Post, and on TVNZ.

However, only Radio New Zealand’s website reported the reaction of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation to this precedent-setting ruling that could mean that in the future HIV non-disclosure may be punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The Aids Foundation says that a Court of Appeal ruling that says people with HIV could be charged with rape if they do not tell a sexual partner about their disease, is over the top.

In a precedent setting decision on Monday the Court of Appeal in Wellington ruled people with HIV could be charged with rape if they do not tell a willing sexual partner about their disease.

However, The Aids Foundation’s executive director Sean Robinson says the law is adequate in dealing with people who did not disclose their disease.

Original post: 14th July 2009

The New Zealand Court of Appeal is to hear a civil liability case from the female complainant in a 2005 New Zealand HIV exposure case that has the potential to change the law and make HIV non-disclosure a more serious crime. The case centres around whether unprotected sex without disclosure vitiates consent, as it does in Canada. If it does, then HIV exposure (non-disclosure without transmission) could be upgraded from criminal nuisance to sexual assault.

According to a story from the NZ Press Association, the woman has been trying to get compensation for years following the ‘distress’ of having had unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man for four months. The woman did not test HIV-positive.

She was in Wellington High Court last week to ask whether she could appeal an earlier High Court decision upholding a previous District Court decision that agreed that the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC, the NZ Government’s accident and injury compensation board) decision to refuse payment for mental injury was correct.

The woman behind this appeal was known as “Shannon” during the first (2004-2005) court case against 35 year-old Justin Dalley.

Although a second complaint led to the groundbreaking ruling that non-disclosure with condom use was not required in New Zealand, in this case Mr Dalley pleaded guilty to the charges of criminal nuisance for having unprotected sex with “Shannon” for four months without disclosing his HIV status.

He was sentenced to “300 hours’ community work, six months’ supervision and… [NZ]$100 reparation to [“Shannon”] to cover her counselling costs and expenses.”

Mental injury caused by criminal nuisance is not covered under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act (which governs ACC payouts), but “Shannon” and her lawyers are pushing the boundaries of civil and criminal law by claiming “that the man’s offending was also a criminal act of a kind that was covered by the IPRC Act, such as sexual violation or indecent assault.”

Lawyers for the woman accepted that the district court was bound by an earlier decision, CLM v ACC, though that case never went as far as the Court of Appeal. The judge said that in that case, which dealt with similar issues, the High Court had ruled that it was not a criminal act of the kind contemplated because those acts required lack of consent. “In that case, as in the present, the sexual intercourse was consensual[, said Justice Jill Mallon]. The High Court concluded that under New Zealand law, as it presently stood, the non-disclosure by the man that he was HIV positive did not vitiate the woman’s consent.” The High Court judge said at the time that any change to the law in this respect was a matter for Parliament.

By allowing the appeal, Justice Mallon has also allowed for the possibility that HIV non-disclosure may become a more serious crime in New Zealand if the Court of Appeal rules in her favour. This appears to be “Shannon”‘s ultimate goal. An article from TVNZ.com at the time of Dalley’s 2004 arrest in what would become the condom ruling case highlighted that “Shannon” was trying to get NZ law changed to require HIV disclosure regardless of condom use.

Dalley’s ex-girlfriend “Shannon” has been fighting for a law change so anyone with HIV has to disclose their status whether they practise safe sex or not. “I don’t think anyone’s got the right to decide to put someone else’s life at risk and I think it’s only fair that somebody should know all the details,” she says.

Later, in an article published in the New Zealand Herald at the time of Dalley’s 2005 sentencing, “Shannon” was said to be angered by the non-custodial sentence.

The woman, known only as “Shannon”, said the judge’s decision had sent a strong message to every HIV-positive person that Dalley’s behaviour was acceptable. “I was willing to accept home detention but not this.” She said she had been unable to work during the nine-month case and had lost about $30,000 in wages. Judge Behrens said the woman had discovered Dalley’s condition after receiving a letter from someone who knew him. She was traumatised, lost her job and was unable to face friends.

Interestingly, the article also reveals that following the discovery that her partner was HIV-positive, she “had lied to Dalley and his family, telling them she was HIV-positive.” It was that, along with Dalley’s early guilty plea, which had resulted in his lenient sentence.

Given the hysteria surrounding the current ‘HIV predator’ case, which has included calls for public health and privacy law reform, it is entirely possible that the Court of Appeal might be more willing to reconsider whether non-disclosure of HIV status deserves to be upgraded to a more serious ‘crime’.

Switzerland: New Law on Epidemics only criminalising intentional transmission passed in lower house

In a remarkable turns of events in the Swiss Federal Assembly’s National Council (lower house) yesterday, the new, revised Law on Epidemics was passed with a last minute amendment by Green MP Alec von Graffenried that only criminalises the intentional spread of a communicable disease.

The history of the revision of the Swiss Law on Epidemics has been a long and rocky one. The redrafting of revisions to Article 231 of the Swiss Penal Code – one of the most draconian and discriminatory laws on HIV exposure in the world – began in 2010.

The first draft of the proposed new article removed much of the most draconian provisions (i.e. allowing for prosecutions of an HIV-positive partner despite an HIV-negative partner’s full, knowing consent to unprotected sex) leaving only intentional exposure or transmission a criminal offence. Broad stakeholder consultation agreed with this draft.

However, in December 2010, a new draft presented by the Swiss Parliament’s Executive Branch (Federal Council) ignored the consultation and added lesser states of mind – simple intention and negligence – as well as malicious intent, despite the broad acceptance that the previous version had achieved amongst all stakeholders. Furthermore, the bill introduced a new paragraph creating an HIV disclosure defence.

At a mid-2011 hearing, the National Council’s Committee on Social Security and Public Health (tasked with the re-drafting of the Law on Epidemics) appeared to be open to moving back towards the original draft. The Committee explicitly recognised that the present criminalisation of consensual unprotected sex between a person with HIV and one without undermines prevention efforts and the principle of shared responsibility of both sexual partners.

However, at the end of 2011 the Committee produced further amendments that discarded the disclosure defence but which added “lack of scruples” and “self-serving motives” as alternative elements of intent. The Committee remained split on the question of negligence with the majority opting to retain the section and the minority recommending it be stricken.

So it came as a very welcome surprise that, when the bill finally reached the National Council for debate and final vote yesterday, an amendment by Green MP Alec von Graffenried was proposed at the last minute and almost immediately and overwhelmingly passed by 116 votes to 40.

A transcript of the entire proceedings (in a combination of French and German) are available here, but below I quote the full (unofficial) English translation of von Graffenried’s speech (courtesy of Nick Feustel) explaining his amendment.

In short, he says that the Law on Epidemics needs to deal only with public health issues, such as bioterrorism, and not address harm to individuals. He notes that general assault laws already exist to punish egregious cases of HIV transmission and that much of the proposed bill is not only redundant, but confusing. “You can’t be ‘negligent’, ‘malicious’ and ‘unscrupulous’ at the same time, that’s just not logical,” he argued, quite convicingly.

Advocates in Switzerland were overjoyed at this unexpected turn of events, but one government insider warns that we should not celebrate too early. The bill must now go through the Health Commission of the Council of States (upper house), before it goes to a final vote, and this could take some time (June is mooted, but not definite) and so there may still be further amendments.

For now, however, the clear logic and rationality of von Graffenried is to be celebrated.

Hopefully these developments will have an impact on other countries, too, notably Norway where a similar commission is debating changes to laws that are eerily similar in purpose and outcome to Switzerland’s notorious and outdated Article 231.

Von Graffenried’s Speech

“I speak for the parliamentary group of the Green Party, but of course also in part for my proposition as an individual. This is about punitive laws, we are talking about the amendment of Article 231 in the Penal Code. Reading the draft doesn’t really make you understand what the Commission was about. So I stopped short and then tried to make it clearer in my proposition. As Mrs Schenker explained earlier, there were still some unanswered questions after the Commission’s consultation.

“The problem is that when it comes to transmission of diseases there are always two levels. On the one hand, there is the individual level, the individual health of the aggrieved party. Their health and physical integrity are protected by Articles 111 and the following on those offenses at the beginning of the Special Section of the Penal Code. On the other hand, there is the disease-control part of it. This is the part that article 231 is meant to deal with. That was – how I learned from conversations with the Commission’s members – the Commission’s concern. Article 231 in its present form confuses these two levels. That is how, until now, for example an HIV positive person becomes guilty of bodily harm according to article 123 as well as the spreading of human diseases according to article 231.

“In their draft, the Federal Council completely revised article 231. They included a ‘basic offense’, a ‘qualified offense’, a ‘privileged offense’ and a ‘negligent offense’. But they still adhered to article 231 protecting individual health as well as being effective for disease-control. This was obviously not what the Commission wanted, and so they slashed the article.

“Obviously, the Commission didn’t want to adopt this concept. They only wanted to adopt the ‘qualified offense’, i.e. a highly criminal, if not even terroristic offense. This is about public health, i.e. the spreading of epidemics. This is what I adopted for my proposition. Possible intentional or negligent bodily harm or even manslaughter are covered by the regulations in Article 111 and the following of the Penal Code. Those are about individual health. Thus, criminal liability is only carried out under these regulations, but not anymore under Article 231 of the Penal Code on the spreading of human diseases.

“However, the Commission adopted the ‘negligent offense’. I’ll have to expatiate on this.

“The negligent perpetration is already regulated under the Administrative Criminal Law. Having an article in the Penal Code on this is unnecessary, because this regulation is already included in Articles 82 and the following of the Epidemics Law, which you have just enacted without discussion. Negligent perpetration is already included there.

“The Commission’s version is not possible, because the Commission eliminated the ‘basic offense’. You can’t be ‘negligent’, ‘malicious’ and ‘unscrupulous’ at the same time, that’s just not logical. Paragraph 2 would become ineffective, but at the same time it would also prevent the application of the Administrative Criminal Law, because Article 82, paragraph 1 excludes applying the Administrative Criminal Law, because the Penal Code does have this regulation.

“Therefore, I ask you in the name of the parliamentary group of the Green Party to accept my proposition as an individual, in order to clarify the punitive laws.”

Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation (HJN, 2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download Google translated version of full article here

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

Download ‘HIV, Crime and Punishment’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US: Positive Justice Project Members Endorse REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

Press Release

New York, September 23, 2011 – Members of the Positive Justice Project, a national coalition dedicated to ending the targeting of people with HIV for unreasonable criminal prosecution, voiced their support for the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act that Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced today.

Download the REPEAL ACT here

The bill calls for review of all federal and state laws, policies, and regulations regarding the criminal prosecution of individuals for HIV-related offenses. It is the first piece of federal legislation to take on the issue of HIV criminalization, and provides incentives for states to reconsider laws and practices that unfairly target people with HIV for consensual sex and conduct that poses no real risk of HIV transmission.

The proposed bill is being met with widespread support. Ronald Johnson, Vice President for Policy and Advocacy at AIDS United (a Positive Justice Project member) says, “AIDS United supports the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act. It’s long past time for a review of these criminal and civil commitment laws and we welcome Representative Barbara Lee’s efforts to help local and state officials understand and make needed reforms.”

Thirty-four states and two U.S. territories now have laws that make exposure or non-disclosure of HIV a crime. Sentences imposed on people convicted of HIV-specific offenses can range from 10-30 years and may include sex offender registration even in the absence of intent to transmit HIV or actual transmission.   Though condom use significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission, most HIV-specific laws do not consider condom use a mitigating factor or as evidence that the person did not intend to transmit HIV.

For example, a man with HIV in Iowa received a 25-year sentence for a one-time sexual encounter during which he used a condom and HIV was not transmitted; although the sentence was eventually suspended, he still was required to register as a sex offender and is barred from unsupervised contact with children. People also have been convicted for acts that cannot transmit HIV, such as a man with HIV in Texas who currently is serving 35 years for spitting at a police officer.

“The Repeal HIV Discrimination Act relies on science and public health, rather than punishment, as the lead response to HIV exposure and transmission incidents. It embodies the courage and leadership needed to replace expensive, pointless and punitive reactions to the complex challenge of HIV with approaches that can truly reduce transmission and stigma,” remarked Catherine Hanssens, Executive Director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy and a founder of the Positive Justice Project

Representative Lee’s bill requires designated officials to develop a set of best practices, and accompanying guidance, for states to address the treatment of HIV in criminal and civil commitment cases. The bill also will provide financial support to states that undertake education, reform and implementation efforts.   A fact sheet created by The Center for HIV Law and Policy, AIDS United, Lambda Legal and the ACLU AIDS Project summarizes the problems with HIV criminalization and the measures the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act takes to address them.

“The REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act will serve a critical role in educating Members of Congress and the public about the harmful and discriminatory practice of criminalizing HIV. Such state laws often originated during times when fear and ignorance over HIV transmission were widespread, and serve to stigmatize those who are living with HIV. Our criminal laws should not be rooted in outdated myths. Rep. Lee is to be commended for her tireless leadership on behalf of those who are living with HIV/AIDS,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Scott Schoettes, HIV Project Director at Lambda Legal summarized the support of many. “Lambda Legal wholeheartedly supports the ‘REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act.’ It is high time the nation’s HIV criminalization laws were reformed to reflect the modern reality of living with HIV, both from medical and social perspectives. Except for perhaps the most extreme cases, the criminal law is far too blunt an instrument to address the subtle dynamics of HIV disclosure.”

Other PJP member statements in support of the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act:

“The HIV Prevention Justice Alliance expresses our strong commitment to HIV decriminalization and ongoing support for Representative Barbara Lee’s Repeal HIV Discrimination Bill. We have seen how the criminalization of HIV has increased instead of reduced HIV stigma and panic. We have also seen how the criminalization of HIV further targets communities – black, Latino/a, queer, transgender, low income, sex worker, homeless, drug user – which are already disproportionately impacted by HIV/AIDS and mass incarceration. We applaud Congresswoman Lee’s courageous effort to support resiliency and dignity of HIV positive people and loved ones and affirm her continued support for prevention justice and decriminalization.”

—Che Gossett, Steering Committee Member, HIV Prevention Justice Alliance

“This is definitive legislation in the national fight to end HIV discrimination and for survivors of criminalization.”

—Robert Suttle, Member of Louisiana AIDS Advocacy Network (LAAN)

“A Brave New Day is in full support of Rep. Barbara Lee’s Anti-Criminalization bill.”

—Robin Webb, Executive Director of A Brave New Day

“We feel strongly that many such statutes violate human rights, are constitutionally vague, are irrational, and violate the laws of science in that they attempt to characterize known scientifically proven facts about transmission as irrelevant to the issue of potential damage and danger.   We feel that people’s ‘fear’ if irrational cannot provide a basis for a criminal statute or prosecution under same and that a statute cannot be both legal and illogical.”

—David Scondras, Founder/CEO, Search For A Cure

For a list of organizations supporting the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act, click here.

Guyana’s Special Select Committee of Parliament on the Criminal Responsibility of HIV Infected Individuals has chosen not to create an HIV-specific criminal law

UN Team on AIDS lauds Guyana 09-Sept-2011 – says ‘Guyana gets it right’ by not criminalising HIV GUYANA’S Special Select Committee of Parliament on the Criminal Responsibility of HIV Infected Individuals has chosen not to make the transmission of HIV a criminal act.The Joint United Nations Team on AIDS, coordinated by the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) congratulates the Parliamentary Committee for its mature and measured decision.

This latest parliamentary decision clears the way for Guyana’s HIV response to continue proceeding in a rational and productive direction.

(The full Report of the Special Select Committee to the Guyana Parliament are available online and the Speech of Honourable Dr. Leslie Ramsammy, Minister of Health quoted at: https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2011/09/20/franklin-does-about-face-on-motion-to-criminalize-willful-transmission-of-hivaids/

Expert meeting reviews scientific, medical, legal and human rights issues related to the criminalization of HIV exposure and transmission

World leading scientists and medical practitioners joined legal experts and civil society representatives to discuss the scientific, medical, legal and human rights aspects of the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission. The meeting, organized by UNAIDS, took place in Geneva from 31 August to 2 September.