South Africa: Opposition leader Helen Zille says HIV exposure is ‘attempted murder’, cites Nadja Benaissa case as example

South Africa’s leader of the Democratic Alliance opposition party, Western Cape Premier Helen Zille has said that HIV-positive people who knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing their status, should be charged with attempted murder. She also cited the recent case of German pop star, Nadja Benaissa, as an example for South Africa to follow.

Her remarks, reported in the Cape Times, were made during an address to the South African Institute of International Affairs last week.

She said the lack of personal responsibility contributed to some of the greatest social ills in the country.

“Social pathologies are complex, but I think we must all agree that promoting a culture of personal responsibility is essential to addressing all these things. We also need to take action against people who are HIV-positive and knowingly have unprotected sex without disclosing their status. This, I believe, is an offence on a par with attempted murder. This is complex and difficult, and requires enormous courage from the wronged sexual partner to lay a charge and give evidence,” Zille said.

[…]

Zille said the recent court case against a German pop star for failing to disclose her HIV-positive status was an example to emulate. German singer Nadja Benaissa, a member of No Angels, was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to her ex-boyfriend by having unprotected sex with him despite knowing she had HIV. The 28-year-old was given a two-year suspended prison sentence and 300 hours’ community service. Zille said the lack of personal responsibility contributed to some of the greatest social problems facing the country, such as HIV/Aids, alcoholism, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, foetal alcohol syndrome, and absentee fathers who did not pay maintenance.

In 2001, the South African Law Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the need for an HIV-specific criminal law. It concluded that “an HIV-specific statutory offence/s will have no or little practical utility; the social costs entailed in creating an HIV-specific statutory offence/s are not justified; and an HIV-specific statutory offence/s will infringe the right to privacy to an extent that is not justified.”

A 2003 Criminal Law Amendment Bill sought to define non-disclosure of HIV status prior to otherwise consensual sex as rape, but that definition was not included in the version of the bill ultimately approved in 2007. Rather, the legislation requires HIV-antibody testing for suspected rapists and allows for longer prison sentences for rapists found to be HIV-positive.

Canada: British Columbia man guilty again following retrial (update)

Update August 24th 2010

Adrian Nduwayo, has been found guilty again of five charges of aggravated sexual assault involving five women, three of whom subsequently tested HIV-positive, following a retrial at the BC Supreme Court.

He was oringally guilty of the same charges, plus one of attempted aggravated sexual assault and one of sexual assault in 2005 and sentenced in 2006 to 15 years in prison. This time, he was acquitted of those two other charges.

Details of the reasons for the original appeal are in my original post, below.

According to the report in Vancouver’s mid-market tabloid, The Province, the retrial hinged on the issue of lack of consent due to non-disclosure.

Justice James Williams said that, although the sexual relations were “ostensibly consensual,” that consent was taken away when Nduwayo failed to tell the women that he was HIV positive. “The issue of consent is not as simple as yes or no,” Williams said. “It’s more complicated than that.” In the five cases where Nduwayo was convicted, Williams said he believed that each woman would not have had sex with Nduwayo if they had known about his HIV. He was also satisfied that their lives were endangered by Nduwayo’s actions.

In the reports of the original trial, below, Mr Nduwayo testified he always used condoms and didn’t need to disclose. The complainants said that he didn’t always use condoms. It is unclear whether Justice Williams considered the issue of condom use as reducing the risk of HIV transmission to below Cuerrier’s threshold ‘significant risk’. If not, there’s may well be further confusion regarding condom use and obligations to disclose in Canada that can only be satisfied with the production of police and prosecutorial guidance.

Sentencing submissions will take place on September 10.

Original post June 23rd 2008

An HIV-positive British Columbia man who was found guilty in 2005 on five counts of aggravated sexual assault (for HIV exposure), one of attempted aggravated sexual assault and one of sexual assault, and sentenced in 2006 to 15 years in prison, has won an appeal against his original trial and will be retried.

According to the report in the Bugle-Observer, Adrian Nduwayo’s lawyer successfully argued that the jury was not properly instructed to consider each count separately and not to use evidence from one count when deciding guilt on others, compromising his right to a fair trial.

I have also reprinted a couple of articles published at the time of Mr Nduwayo’s original guilty verdict and sentencing, for background, below. Interestingly, although three of the complainants subsequently tested HIV-positive, Mr Nduwayo was not tried for criminal HIV transmission – and it’s not clear from the reports why that was the case.

Appeal court orders new trial for HIV-positive B.C. man convicted of sex assaults
Wednesday June 18th, 2008
THE CANADIAN PRESS

VANCOUVER – The B.C. Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial for an HIV-positive man who was convicted of sexually assaulting several women for having unprotected sex with them.
Adrian Nduwayo was given a 15-year sentence in 2005 for five counts of aggravated sexual assault, one of attempted aggravated sexual assault and one of sexual assault.
The incidents involved seven different women who said Nduwayo had sex with them without telling them he was HIV-positive and without a condom, while he insisted he did use protection.
But Nduwayo appealed his convictions, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed to consider each count separately and not use evidence from one count when deciding guilt on others.
The court of appeal agreed, saying the trial judge’s charge to the jury didn’t include adequate cautions on that issue.
The court says the fairness of the trail was compromised and has ordered a new trial.

Jury finds B.C. man guilty of spreading HIV
Wed. Dec. 14 2005

CTV.ca News Staff

An HIV-positive B.C. man was found guilty Tuesday night of committing sex crimes for having unprotected sex with women to whom he did not reveal his condition.
A jury in Westminster, B.C. convicted Adrien Nduwayo, 36, of five counts of aggravated sexual assault, one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault and one count of sexual assault.
“The message this sends I think is when you are HIV-positive you have a positive duty to disclose that fact to any perspective partners that you have,” Crown counsel Andrew MacDonald said, minutes after the verdict was released.
He said that all of the women who testified against their former lover showed “tremendous amounts of courage and fortitude.”
The charges relate to Nduwayo’s failure to disclose his virus and engage in unprotected sex with seven women between 2000 and 2003.
Three of those women now have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
During the trial, court heard that Nduwayo carried on affairs, and slept with more than one woman at the same time.
Nduwayo contends he always wore condoms to protect his sexual partners and that he didn’t have a legal obligation to disclose his condition to his partners.
But some of his former lovers said they had to insist that he wear them — and that even then he often did not.
Defence lawyer Paul McMurray said outside the court that Nduwayo’s defence was that all of his sexual partners in question were willing partners and that the fact he used a condom was sufficient in law to maintain their consent.
Nduwayo has said he didn’t tell some of his lovers that he was HIV-positive because they didn’t ask.
Some of them found out about Nduwayo’s condition when they saw news reports that the police were looking for him for allegedly spreading the virus, court heard.
“I think we’re dealing with an area where there was, and is, some uncertainty,” McMurray said outside court.
“Everybody I think accepts that you’re supposed to disclose and you’re supposed to wear condoms but this falls short of that and that’s the difficulty here.”
No date has been set for a sentencing hearing.

B.C. man sentenced to 15 years for spreading HIV

Fri. Mar. 3 2006

CTV.ca News Staff

An HIV-positive man was sentenced to 15 years in prison for having unprotected sex with seven women to whom he did not reveal his condition.
Before he was sentenced in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster, Nduwayo was permitted to address the court.
When he stood up, he went on a lengthy tirade — speaking directly to his accusers and reducing some to tears.
“I feel very bad for these girlfriends who were infected. I did not mean to infect them,” Nduwayo said.
Later, he added: “One day I will prove my innocence.”
Justice John Truscott sentenced Nduwayo to 15 years after deducting two years for time already served.
In December, Nduwayo was found guilty of five counts of aggravated sexual assault, one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault and one count of sexual assault.
“The combined effect of the number of counts that we were dealing with in this case, resulted in the sentence being longer than any others that have been previously been imposed,” Crown counsel Andrew MacDonald told CTV Vancouver.
Nduwayo was accused of deceiving sexual partners about his HIV status and deliberately engaging in unprotected sex between 2000 and 2003. Three of those women now have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
“Clearly the complainants who have been infected with the HIV virus have had a serious and devastating toll taken on their lives,” MacDonald said.
During the trial, court heard that Nduwayo carried on affairs, and slept with more than one woman at the same time.
Nduwayo contends he always wore condoms to protect his sexual partners and that he didn’t have a legal obligation to disclose his condition to his partners.
But some of his former lovers said they had to insist that he wear them — and that even then he often did not.
Meanwhile, some AIDS groups argue that cases like Nduwayo’s should not be criminalized.
“We feel that criminalization has the potential to deter people from testing,” said Wayne Campbell, with the British Columbia Persons with AIDS Society. “We encourage people to get tested, every sexually active adult, should be tested every six months.”
With a report from CTV Vancouver’s Michele Brunoro

Canada: New report calls for prosecutorial guidelines to establish ‘significant risk’

A new report, launched at AIDS 2010 in Vienna last month, recommends that the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General establish a consultation process to inform the development of prosecution guidelines for cases involving allegations of non-disclosure of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

HIV Non-Disclosure and the Criminal Law: Establishing Policy Options for Ontario contributes to the development of an evidence-informed approach to using the criminal law to address the risk of the sexual transmission of HIV infection in Ontario, and offers the most comprehensive, current discussion of the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure in Canada.

The report was triggered by the absence of policy-based discussion of this issue amongst key decision makers in government and by community concerns about the intensified use and wide reach of the criminal law in circumstances of HIV non-disclosure.

In Canada, people living with HIV have a criminal law obligation to disclose their status before engaging in activities that pose a “significant risk” of HIV transmission. The report emphasises that uncertainties associated with that obligation and interpretations of the obligation that are not informed by current scientific research on HIV transmission risks are foundational to current problems in the use of the criminal law to regulate the risk of the sexual transmission of HIV and explores various forms of evidence relevant to a thorough policy consideration of the use of the criminal law in situations of HIV non-disclosure in sexual relationships.

York University has produced a 1200 word pdf summary of the report which I’m including in its entirety below. A pdf of the entire report can be downloaded here.

Title: The criminal law about sex and HIV disclosure is not clear

What is this research about?

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, HIV-positive people are required to disclose their status before engaging in sexual activities that pose a “significant risk” of transmitting HIV to a sex partner. Canadian courts, however, have yet to clearly define what sex acts, in what circumstances, carry a “significant risk.” This has led to an expansive use of the criminal law and created a problem for people with HIV—they can face criminal charges even though the law is not clear about when they must tell sex partners about their HIV. For example, people with HIV who are taking anti-HIV medications are much less likely to transmit HIV during sex, even where no condoms are used. But Ontario police and Crown Attorneys continue to interpret “significant risk” broadly. In fact, charges have been pursued in cases where, on a scientific level, there is little risk of HIV transmission.

This uncertainty has created problems not only for people with HIV but also for public health staff, and health care and social service providers. It has challenged these front-line workers in their attempts to counsel and support people with HIV. It has also caused many people with HIV to be further stigmatized. The media, in its coverage of these cases, has tended to exaggerate the risk of HIV transmission at a time when more and more experts have come to think of HIV as a chronic and manageable infection.

Despite these problems, and over 100 criminal cases in Canada, there has been a lack of evidence to inform public discussion about this important criminal justice policy issue. In Ontario, policy-makers have not weighed in publicly on the criminalization of people who do not reveal to their sex partners that they have HIV.

What did the researchers do?

A project team, led by Eric Mykhalovskiy, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at York University, set out to explore how the criminal law has been used in prosecutions involving allegations of HIV non-disclosure. The team included members of community organizations in Toronto and front-line workers, some of whom are living with HIV. Their goal was to create evidence and propose options to guide policy and law reform. They created the first national database on criminal cases of HIV non-disclosure in Canada. Professor Mykhalovskiy interviewed over 50 people with HIV, public health staff, and health care and social service providers to find out how the criminal law is affecting their lives or their work—another Canadian first.

What did the researchers find?

From 1989 to 2009, Canada saw 104 criminal cases in which 98 people were charged for not disclosing to sex partners that they have HIV. Ontario accounts for nearly half of these cases. Most of the cases have occurred since 2004. Half of the heterosexual men who have been charged in Ontario since 2004 are Black. Nearly 70% of all cases have resulted in prison terms. In 34% of these cases, HIV transmission did not occur.

Looking at the cases in Ontario and Canada, the researchers found inconsistencies in the evidence courts relied on to decide whether a sex act carried a significant risk of HIV transmission. They also found inconsistencies in how courts have interpreted the legal test established by the Supreme Court, and inconsistencies between court decisions in cases with similar facts. It appears, in some cases, that police and Crown prosecutors have not been guided by the scientific research when deciding whether to lay charges or proceed with a prosecution.

Because it is important to understand the scientific research when assessing whether there is a “significant risk” of HIV transmission during sex, the researchers included in their report a succinct summary of the leading science. The risk, in general, is low. Activities like unprotected sexual intercourse carry a risk that is much lower than commonly believed. Most unprotected intercourse involving an HIV-positive person does not result in the transmission of HIV. But the risk of transmission is not the same for all sex acts and circumstances. Antiretroviral therapy, however, can reduce the amount of HIV in a person’s bloodstream and make the person less infectious to their partner. Also, because of antiretroviral therapy, HIV infection has gone from being a terminal disease to a chronic, manageable condition in the eyes of many experts and people living with the virus.

Many people with HIV who were interviewed remain concerned that even if they disclose their HIV, their sex partners might complain to police. Health care and service providers stated that they are confused by the vagueness of the law. They also stated that criminalizing HIV non-disclosure prevents people from seeking the support they need to come to grips with living with HIV and disclosing to partners. But people with HIV and their providers have many suggestions for improving public policy and the law. The “significant risk” test needs to be clarified. The public health and criminal justice systems need to work together. And policies and procedures to guide Crown Attorneys need to be put in place.

How can you use this research?

Policymakers have several options to respond to the lack of clarity in the law and the resulting expansive use of the law. They can continue to let police, Crown Attorneys, and courts deal with cases as they arise. They can work to amend the Criminal Code. But the best solution, in the short term, would be the development of policy and procedures to guide Crown Attorneys working on these types of cases. The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General should establish a consultation process to help develop policy and procedures for criminal cases in which people have allegedly not disclosed that they are HIV-positive to their sex partners.

What you need to know:

The criminal law can lead to very serious consequences for people who are charged or convicted. So policymakers need to make sure that the criminal law about HIV disclosure is clear and clearly informed by scientific research about HIV transmission. They also need to look to research to assess whether the law is having unintended consequences that get in the way of HIV prevention efforts.

About the Researchers:

Eric Mykhalovskiy is an Associate Professor and CIHR New Investigator in the Department of Sociology. Glenn Betteridge is a former lawyer who now works as a legal and health consultant. David McLay holds a PhD in biology and is a professional science writer.

This Research Snapshot is from their report, “HIV Non-disclosure and the criminal law: Establishing policy options for Ontario,” which was funded by the Ontario HIV Treatment Network and involved a research collaboration between York University, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic (Ontario), Black Coalition for AIDS Prevention, AIDS Committee of Toronto, and Toronto PWA Foundation.

Global: AIDS 2010 round-up part 2: Posters

This selection of posters presented in Vienna follows up from my previous AIDS 2010 posting on the sessions, meetings and media reporting that took place during last month’s XVIII International AIDS Conference. I’ll be a highlighting a few others in later blog posts, but for now here’s three posters that highlight how the law discriminates; why non-disclosure is problematic to criminalise; and how political advocacy can sometimes yield positive change.

In Who gets prosecuted? A review of HIV transmission and exposure cases in Austria, England, Sweden and Switzerland, (THPE1012) Robert James examines which people and which communicable diseases came to the attention of the criminal justice system in four European countries, and concludes: “Men were more likely than women to be prosecuted for HIV exposure or transmission under criminal laws in Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. The majority of cases in Austria involved the prosecution of female sex workers. Migrants from southern and west African countries were the first people prosecuted in Sweden and England but home nationals have now become the largest group prosecuted in both countries. Even in countries without HIV specific criminal laws, people with HIV have been prosecuted more often than people with more common contagious diseases.”Download the pdf here.

In Responsibilities, Significant Risks and Legal Repercussions: Interviews with gay men as complex knowledge-exchange sites for scientific and legal information about HIV (THPE1015), Daniel Grace and Josephine MacIntosh from Canada interviewed 55 gay men, some of whom were living with HIV, to explore issues related to the criminalisation of non-disclosure, notably responsibilities, significant risks and legal repercussions. Their findings highlight why gay men believe that disclosure is both important and highly problematic. Download the pdf here.

In Decriminalisation of HIV transmission in Switzerland (THPE1017), Luciano Ruggia and Kurt Pärli of the Swiss National AIDS Commission (EKAF) – the Swiss statement people – describe how they have been working behind the scenes to modify Article 231 of the Swiss Penal Code which allows for the prosecution by the police of anyone who allegedly spreads “intentionally or by neglect a dangerous transmissible human disease” without the need of a complainant. Disclosure of HIV-positive status and/or consent to unprotected sex does not preclude this being an offence, in effect criminalising all unprotected sex by people with HIV. Since 1989, there have been 39 prosecutions and 26 convictions under this law. A new Law on Epidemics removes Article 231, leaving only intentional transmission as a criminal offence, and will be deabted before the Swiss Parliament next year. Download the pdf here.

Guyana: Lawmakers debate HIV-specific criminal law

A newly proposed law for the South American country of Guyana, entitled ‘Criminal Responsibility of HIV Infected Individuals’ was recently debated in the country’s National Assembly. (Thanks to Lucy Reynolds from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine for alerting me).

Two news reports published on July 30th – on Caribbean 360 and Stabroek News – cover the debate and outcome.

Everall Franklin, member of the Guyana Action Party-Rise Organise and Rebuild (GAP-ROAR) proposed the law, seconded by Latchmin Punalall from Alliance For Change (AFC). Both cited their belief that the law would deter HIV-related risk-taking behaviour and/or force individuals to disclose their status.

While speaking on the motion, Franklin said that the stigma and discrimination associated with the virus is being propelled by ignorance and noted that the intention of the motion was, while not to remove or dilute existing laws, to ensure that certain obligations of individuals are kept in tact while others enjoy their rights. He said that the motion should be considered from the perspective of a person being tested positive as having contracted HIV having the responsibility of informing partners of his/her status. In addition, a person being raped by someone who is infected with the virus as well as women who become pregnant year after year, and who have tested positive for the virus, should be considered, he said.

AFC MP Latchmin Punalall, who seconded the motion, said that her party stands for the sanctity of humanity and according to her the time is right to pass critical legislation to prevent the spread of HIV by “reckless” persons. Against this backdrop, she noted that when such individuals know before hand that a “stiff penalty is in place …they will think twice.”

Strong opposing arguments came from Health Minister Dr Leslie Ramsammy, supported by Volda Lawrence of the main opposition People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR).

“Stigma and discrimination have proven to be the powerful drives of the HIV epidemic. Most people living with HIV and know their status are taking measures to protect themselves and others,” [Ramsammy] said, insisting that any motion that sets criminal penalties for HIV transmission and to force public disclosure of a person’s status is counter to the objectives of public health. “The fact is that criminalisation of HIV exposure risks undermining public health and human rights and as such it is not a solution,” the Health Minister maintained.

He emphasised that in the instance where a person willfully transmits HIV with intent to cause harm, the matter calls for a comprehensive national dialogue, which can be deliberated at the level of the parliamentary special select committee.

Of particular interest was Mr Franklin’s referral to precents set in the Global North

adding that nations, including the US and Australia, have passed laws making the wilful spread of HIV a criminal offence.

Ms Lawrence countered that

criminal procedures have been implemented in countries where addressing the issue is concerned but according to her such measures have not been effective.

All Members of Parliament have agreed that the motion be taken to a special select committee to be discussed further.

US: Obama administration calls for end to HIV-specific criminal laws

Fantastic news from the United States, courtesy of Todd Heywood at the Michigan Messenger. His article is reproduced in full below.

On Thursday I present my poster at AIDS 2010 analysing two years of US arrests and prosecutions, so this is extremely timely, and very exciting. It is also the first time I have added a ‘decriminalisation’ label to my keywords – a significant milestone!

From the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States, July 2010.

An important step we can take is to ensure that laws and policies support our current understanding of best public health practices for preventing and treating HIV. At least 32 states have HIV-specific laws that criminalize behavior by people living with HIV. Some criminalize behavior like spitting and biting by people with HIV, and were initially enacted at a time when there was less knowledge about HIV’s transmissibility. Since it is now clear that spitting and biting do not pose significant risks for HIV transmission, many believe that it is unfair to single out people with HIV for engaging in these behaviors and should be dealt with in a consistent manner without consideration of HIV status. Some laws criminalize consensual sexual activity between adults on the basis that one of the individuals is a person with HIV who failed to disclose their status to their partner. CDC data and other studies, however, tell us that intentional HIV transmission is atypical and uncommon. A recent research study also found that HIV-specific laws do not influence the behavior of people living with HIV in those states where these laws exist. While we understand the intent behind such laws, they may not have the desired effect and they may make people less willing to disclose their status by making people feel at even greater risk of discrimination. In some cases, it may be appropriate for legislators to reconsider whether existing laws continue to further the public interest and public health. In many instances, the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment.

Recommendation 3.3 Promote public health approaches to HIV prevention and care: State legislatures should consider reviewing HIV-specific criminal statutes to ensure that they are consistent with current knowledge of HIV transmission and support public health approaches to preventing and treating HIV.

Obama administration calls for end to HIV-specific criminal laws
Advocates call new strategy a ‘wonderful development’

By Todd A. Heywood
Michigan Messenger
7/20/10

Many HIV experts and advocates are applauding the nation’s first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy, issued on July 13 by the White House, because it calls for an end to state laws that criminalize the transmission of HIV.

Those laws date back to the late 1980s and early 90s, when the death toll from HIV infection was mounting and no medications were readily available to treat the viral infection.

“In many instances, the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment,” the report says, after acknowledging the rationale behind passage of such laws. “CDC data and other studies, however, tell us that intentional HIV transmission is atypical and uncommon. A recent research study also found that HIV-specific laws do not influence the behavior of people living with HIV in those states where these laws exist.”

Michigan is one of 32 states with HIV-specific criminal laws. In Michigan, it is a felony for a person with HIV infection to engage in sexual penetration “however slight” without first disclosing their HIV-positive status to the sex partner. The law includes the use of sex toys, which have never been shown to be a route of transmission for HIV. It does not, however, include sharing needles, which is an extremely effective way to transmit the virus, experts say.

National experts weigh in

“It is the first truly meaningful official statement on the issue of criminalization and the role of civil rights in addressing the HIV epidemic, and reflects both the advocacy of HIV civil rights advocates who consistently prioritized the issue, and the willingness of ONAP (Office of National AIDS Policy) staff to respond substantively and decisively,” Catherine Hanssens, executive Director of the HIV Law and Policy Center in New York.

Hanssens pointed out how the strategy’s implementation plan — which is a companion document to the strategy — goes beyond merely advising legislatures to re-visit their HIV-specific laws and contains specific goals to address HIV criminalization, including study by the Department of Justice.

“Individually and collectively, these actions can and should produce findings that HIV-specific criminal laws and prosecutions contravene prioritized public health goals; subject people with HIV to irrational, exceptionalist treatment and punishment solely on the basis of their known HIV status, and also consequently represent a violation of federal antidiscrimination laws created to protect those affected by HIV,” said Hanssens.

Bebe Anderson, director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund’s HIV Project, echoed Hanssens, calling the strategy and its implementation plan a “wonderful development.”

But she says individual states may struggle with addressing the laws.

“I think it will depend on each state and the political environment,” she noted.

Michigan lawmakers divided on HIV-specific criminal law

Anderson’s statement is reflective of the political reality in Michigan today. With the state House controlled by Democrats and the state Senate controlled by Republicans, lawmakers say that while these changes might be necessary, they will be difficult to achieve.

“If they don’t work, then we have to revisit them,” said House Speaker Andy Dillon of Redford Township of the HIV-specific criminal laws.

“Absolutely, we need to revisit them,” said Rep. Joan Bauer (D-Lansing). “I am open to looking at what is working and what is not.”

Mark Meadows (D-East Lansing) chairs the House Judiciary Committee and he too said he would revisit the laws. He said he felt it was still important to revisit Michigan’s bio-terrorism law to clarify it after a 45-year-old HIV-positive Clinton Township man was charged with the law for allegedly biting a neighbor during a fight. Those charges have since been dismissed by Macomb County Circuit Court Judge Peter Maceroni.

Meadows said prosecutions such as the Macomb case increase stigma against the HIV-positive community. He previously has called that prosecution “silly.”

But Republican law makers say not so quick.

State Sen. Tom George (R-Texas Township) chairs the Senate Health Policy Committee.

“I see these (calls to address specific laws– such as the HIV-specific criminal laws or nondiscrimination laws) as more of a political agenda and less of a public health issue,” George said. “I don’t think changing that or revisiting that is going to make a big difference like testing will.”

George, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor and is a physician, is pushing legislation which will change Michigan’s law on HIV testing, which requires signed informed consent before an HIV test can be conducted. His legislation would make Michigan an opt-out state, meaning patients would give general consent for HIV testing when consenting for care and treatment. They could opt out of HIV testing, but only in writing.

Rep. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) serves on the House Judiciary Committee. And while he has been a vocal critic of the HIV-as-terrorism prosecution, and previously said he was in favor of repealing the state criminal law on HIV disclosure, now says he no longer favors the move.

“After careful consideration and listening to the feelings of my constituents, I think you should have to disclose it,” says Jones. “Should it just be HIV? Absolutely not. It should include things that are much easier to transmit like Hepatitis and TB.”

Jones is the former sheriff of Eaton County and says he thinks that an HIV-positive person spitting at a police officer, and declaring the hope the officer is infected, should be criminalized, even though there is no known risk of infection from the act.

“It shows intent,” Jones said.

The National HIV/AIDS Strategy specifically cites criminalizing spitting as a concern.

“Since it is now clear that spitting and biting do not pose significant risks for HIV transmission, many believe that it is unfair to single out people with HIV for engaging in these behaviors and should be dealt with in a consistent manner without consideration of HIV status,” the report states.

Jones admitted it is a crime already in Michigan to spit on a police officer, noting that he vividly recalled while a road officer having a suspect spit at him. That man, Jones said, ended up serving 30 days in jail for the incident.

Regardless of the how debate starts shaping up in Michigan, don’t expect the Michigan Department of Community Health to step into the fray anytime soon, says Debra Szwedja, acting director of the MDCH’s Division of Health, Wellness and Disease Control.

“Really, at this point in time, that is something the legislature will have to initiate,” Szwedja said.

US: Nushawn Williams “poster child” of newly proposed HIV-specific law faces a lifetime of civil confinement (update 2)

Update: July 20th
A New York Supreme Court judge in Buffalo has dismissed Nushawn Williams’s petition for release and ruled he could remain in jail while awaiting his October trial under New York’s Civil Confinement Law.

Update: May 11th
No big surprise, but a New York State Supreme Court judge has ruled that Nushawn Williams “poses a danger to society and as a result, must remain behind bars even though his sentence is complete.”

State Supreme Court Justice John Michalski said there is probable cause that Williams suffers from a “sexual abnormality” that would pose a danger to society.

With the ruling, Williams could now face a trial to determine his future status.

Both sides are due back in court next month as they hold arguments over a defense motion to dismiss the case.

Under a civil law, passed in 2007, the state can lock up a sex offender indefinitely if it proves the person has a mental abnormality and is likely to offend again.

Original post: April 23rd

The impact of the 1997 Nushawn Williams case continues to reverberate in New York. Following last year’s denied request for parole, there are now plans to keep him locked up forever by New York’s Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo.

The New York Times reported on April 13th

Mr. Williams, 33, was due to be released on Tuesday after serving his maximum sentence of 12 years, but Mr. Cuomo’s office is seeking to keep him in custody under a three-year-old state law that permits the civil confinement of sex offenders. Last Friday, a state judge in Buffalo, near where Mr. Williams has been jailed, ordered that he remain in custody pending the outcome of a civil confinement proceeding.

Now, State Senator Cathy Young of Olean is not only urging Cuomo to keep Williams in civil confinement but also proposing a new HIV-specific law for New York using Williams as a “poster child”. Back in February 2009, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota teamed up with Parents for Megan’s Law to advocate for the same thing.

Here is Senator Young’s press release, featuring her proposed law in full.

Senator Cathy Young (R,I,C – Olean) today renewed her call for a law making it a crime to knowingly spread the deadly HIV/AIDS virus to other unsuspecting people. Senator Young’s announcement comes in the wake of news that Nushawn Williams, the man who caused an AIDS epidemic in Chautauqua County in the 1990s, had completed his prison sentence and could be released to the public.

Senator Young also called on New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to rigorously fight to ensure that Williams remains confined in a psychiatric facility and is not let back out into the community.

“People who knowingly use HIV/AIDS as a deadly weapon by purposely exposing others to the disease should be severely punished. This proposed law would provide the appropriate penalties for those who callously put other people’s lives in jeopardy, and will help further prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS by keeping victims and prison supervisors informed when inmates test positive for the virus.”

State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has announced that he is seeking, under New York’s Sex Offender Management Act, to have Williams confined in a state-operated psychiatric facility.

Senator Young said, “Nushawn Williams is the poster child for why we need a civil confinement law in New York State. I urge Attorney General Cuomo to do everything in his power to ensure that Williams remains confined. This deadly predator must not be returned to society.”

Senator Young’s legislation would create the crimes of reckless endangerment of the public health in the 1st and 2nd degrees for people who test positive for HIV/AIDS and then recklessly engage in conduct which results in transmission of HIV/AIDS to another unsuspecting person or puts that person at substantial risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

The bill would also, among other provisions, required persons charged with a sex offense or reckless endangerment of the public health to be tested for HIV/AIDS and the results to be available to the victim (s) upon request.

The announcement in the fall of 1997, that Nushawn Williams had been informed of his HIV-positive status but continued to have unprotected sex with numerous women and underage girls in Chautauqua County, shocked the state and the nation. Williams was directly responsible for infecting thirteen victims statewide with HIV, two of whom passed on the virus to their children.

Williams completed his 12-year sentence for reckless endangerment and two counts of statutory rape last Tuesday, but continues to be held at Wende Correctional Facility in Alden.

While in prison, Williams tossed his HIV-tainted urine at another inmate, said he wanted to infect more women with HIV when he is released, fought with other prisoners, engaged in gang activity, and arranged to have drugs smuggled in and used them. He did not complete any sex offender or drug treatment programs.

In a required pre-release psychiatric evaluation, Williams was found to be antisocial, psychopathic, lacking in remorse and “prone to further sexual contact with underage individuals because of deficits in his emotional capacity to understand why this is wrong.”

Specifically, Senator Young’s legislation (S. 3407) would:

– Create the crime of reckless endangerment of the public health in the 1st degree, a class B felony, for those who are aware that they have tested positive for HIV/AIDS and then recklessly engage in conduct which results in transmission of the virus to another person who is unaware of the condition. Also creates the crime or reckless endangerment of the public health in the 2nd degree, a class C felony, for those who have tested positive and then engage in conduct which creates a substantial risk of the transmission of HIV/AIDS to another unwitting person;

– Create a class E felony for providing false information or statement regarding HIV status to a health care provider;

– Require all currently incarcerated persons and persons newly entering a correctional

facility be tested for the HIV virus;

– Provide that a person charged with a sex offense under article 130 of the State Penal Law or reckless endangerment in the 1st or 2nd degrees must be tested for HIV and the results of the test made available to the victim (s) and defendant upon request;

– Provide that upon the diagnosis of an inmate with HIV/AIDS, notice of the diagnosis must be provided to corrections personnel and others involved in the supervision and care of the inmate to that they can take appropriate measure to protect themselves and other inmates from exposure.

UK: New Guidance for Police Investigating Criminal Transmission of HIV

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

Police and HIV sector work together to produce guidance

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

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

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

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

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

Deborah Jack, Chief Executive of NAT, comments;

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

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

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

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

to be treated supportively.

for their confidentially to be respected.

an investigation of reckless transmission only to be pursued if a complainant has been infected with HIV

for the case to be continually discussed with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure only legitimate complaints are pursued.

contact with any other individuals relevant to the case to be initiated by trained staff at GUM clinics.

and uninterrupted access to medication in the event of being taken into custody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full statement below.

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

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

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

There are two key points in this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether the disease was actually transmitted. The key point is whether the act caused danger. This can be a real danger or an abstract (hypothetical) danger.

Whether the person carrying out the act thought, ‘without good cause’ (negligently), that the other person already carried the disease. [Note that if person who carried out the act thought ‘with good cause’ (not negligently) the other person was already infected, then the act is not a criminal offence.]

Whether the other person consented to the act.

Whether the person who carried out the act disclosed his/her disease, although this may reduce the severity of the penalty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mexico: Laws Criminalising HIV Transmission Are Discriminatory

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

Mexico: Laws Criminalising HIV Transmission Are Discriminatory

Inter Press Service – June 29, 2010
Emilio Godoy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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