Oh ghod

[lovingboth]

There's been another conviction for HIV transmission, this time of a woman.

As ever, there is zero evidence that, despite the comment in the story, the infection was "deliberate".

I am more surprised that it's so hard to find the details. "A woman with HIV could infect you lads!" (my paraphrasing) was one of the HEA's more notorious ads, not least because the viewer was supposed to be horrified that she would look the same as she did now in several years time. Presumably, they'd be happier if she died quickly.

But on the BBC's website, it's not in the news page, not in health, not on the Wales page, but only on the SE Wales one. A bit of browsing reveals that it's copied from a Press Association story, not that the BBC acknowledge that...

Comments

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

there is zero evidence that, despite the comment in the story, the infection was "deliberate".

Indeed - and reporters would do well to note that. It's also the case, though, that the mens rea for GBH doesn't require you to have intended the grievous outcome: it is sufficient to be reckless as to whether it occurs or not.

Of course, this gets in to terribly murky waters about what it is reasonable to assume or not. But I'd be very surprised if any court ever ruled that it was reasonable behaviour, in the context of discussing having unprotected sex, to say you were HIV negative when you knew you were HIV positive. (Which is one reading of what happened - although like you, I've found the key details of the case frustratingly unclear.)

I am more surprised that it's so hard to find the details.

I'm not. Court reporting is rubbish - you hardly ever get details of what legal points the case turned on. Just yesterday I was trying to find out about the Polanski libel trial, and couldn't find anywhere the grounds on which the publishers were contesting it (there are about seven possible defences to libel in English & Welsh law, one of which is truth).

[zotz]

I believe they're maintaining that the story is substantially true, although they've admitted that if so it must have happened a couple of weeks after they said it did, which would mean that it was after Tate's funeral rather than on the way to it.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's my understanding too - but it's not clear whether that's what they're saying to the press or what they're saying in court. It's probably the only defence available from the given information.

I wanted to be sure that they aren't trying on a Reynolds v Times qualified privilege defence - i.e. that it was responsible journalism. If they were it would probably have been reported on, since that's still exciting new law. (If such a thing isn't an oxymoron.)

[lovingboth]

Looks to be what's being said in court - see today's evidence.

[zotz]

The defence hasn't started yet, of course, but for what it's worth the last sentence of today's Guardian coverage reads:

"However, Condé Nast, which denies libel, says the article is substantially true and will call Mr Lapham and a friend who was at Elaine's when the alleged incident took place to testify."

And that's all I know, I'm afraid.

[lovingboth]

Yep, we're talking Cunningham recklessness here, which requires the defendant to know that a risk is being taken, even if the injury is not intended.

What makes me weep is that she's reported as saying that "health staff had told her that it was almost impossible for a woman to pass on the virus." If she didn't think there was a risk, that's a defence. Instead, she plead guilty.

The position in England & Wales, following the Appeal Court's ruling in the second case to come before them is appalling. They drew the curious distinction between

being aware of the risks of having unprotected sex with someone, including infection or pregnancy,

and

consenting to the specific risk that they might be infected with HIV as a result.

Because his HIV status was concealed from the women, the court declared that there could not have been informed consent to the second risk, or even an "honest belief" on his part that there was, despite their willingness to have unprotected sex with him, knowing of the more general risks.

[zotz]

"health staff had told her that it was almost impossible for a woman to pass on the virus."

Where's that from? The BBC just says "difficult".

[lovingboth]

The Sun.

The BBC's report has changed several times, as they've retracted several claims that she 'deliberately' or 'knowingly' infecting him.

[zotz]

Most of the stories don't mention that bit at all. ICWales says difficult. It would be worth knowing which was more accurate.

[lovingboth]

BASHH, in their guidelines for PEP, reckon that the per act risk for "insertive vaginal intercourse" is between 0.03%-0.09%, i.e. less than one in a thousand.

There's evidence to suggest that it's nearer one in ten thousand, outside the initial couple of months after her being infected and any eventual onset of Aids.

Anyway, they were fucking without condoms for ten months. Say they did it a hundred times. With the high end of the BASHH estimate, you're looking at a 8.6% chance of transmission, low end, less than 3%. She's far more likely to have become pregnant.