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

[zotz]

According to the Grauniad yesterday (looks to be a longer version of the PA story), she'd known for several months. And it's reckless transmission rather than deliberate transmission that she was charged with.

I wouldn't sue the woman who sneezed on me on the Tube this morning

De minimis non curat lex.

Interestingly, I haven't heard of any controversy over the law in Scotland, which was I believe found to cover this without alteration. Does anyone know if there's actually been upset about this?

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, a cold is a trifling example, and I was being slightly whimsical. But what if someone knowingly exposes someone to something else life-threatening, like tuberculosis or meningitis? Or typhoid (mary)?

[zotz]

I believe there have been prosecutions in England and Wales over that sort of thing, but not for a fair while.

[lovingboth]

The case in Scotland - and another one that was due to start in April, but has been postponed until the defendent finishes a prison sentence in Italy - was for 'culpable and reckless conduct'.

In England & Wales, they're using the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. No new law's been passed.

Yes, there has been upset, but not nearly enough, IMV. Before the first case happened, the government were saying that reckless transmission shouldn't be an offence, FFS.

It certainly (in England & Wales) applies to other 'serious' STIs. Hep B has been mentioned a couple of times, but it probably goes as far as gonorrhoea. That was the disease in the crucial Victorian case the Court of Appeal decided no longer applied.

[zotz]

'culpable and reckless conduct'

Yes, but if the effect is the same (in this sort of case, anyway) is it similarly controversial? If not, any idea why not?

Before the first case happened, the government were saying that reckless transmission shouldn't be an offence, FFS.

Didn't the Law Comission disagree, though?

[lovingboth]

<cynical> Who cares about junkie ex-cons? </cynical>

One of the people who is kicking up a fuss about the issue as whole is at St Andrews. Unfortunately, the Scottish Executive have an adjective-deleted proposal for compulsory blood tests on anyone thought to have put a member of the polis at risk.

Yes they did - and I'm still waiting for them to send me a copy of their original paper. It was in response to that that the government repeated their view that a) trying to prosecute reckless transmission wouldn't work because of Clarence and b) it shouldn't happen, as a matter of public policy.