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

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

The article was in the Metro earlier in the week - in their account, it seemed clear that she knew she had HIV, but was in denial about it so didn't talk about it to her new partner. To what extent that makes her culpable I'm not sure.

I think it's a bit strange accusing someone of deliberately passing on a disease. I wouldn't sue the woman who sneezed on me on the Tube this morning for 'deliberately' giving me a cold; why should STDs be any different? I suppose it's because there are such big issues of trust and intimacy tied up with sex; in the same way that rape is perceived in our society as worse than other forms of violence, STDs are seen as worse forms of disease to pass on.

[f-l-i-r-t.livejournal.com]

I read about it yesterday on the BBC site, I was sure of it, hmmm?

[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).