From Auntie Beeb, BBC NEWS | UK | HIV conviction is a landmark case:
Mohammed Dica is the first person to be successfully prosecuted in England and Wales for passing on the Aids virus, HIV, through sex.Though the case is a landmark, the prosecution followed a decision by the Home Office some years ago that there were enough powers under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 to secure convictions in such cases.
[. . .] Dica's conviction of causing grievous bodily harm under the act has proved them right, and is likely to mean more prosecutions in the future.
The conviction is the second in the UK for transmitting HIV.
In February 2001 Stephen Kelly, 33, was convicted under Scottish common law of culpable and reckless behaviour in having unprotected sex with his girlfriend, Anne Craig, knowing he was infected with the virus.
Couldn't find the text of the original doing a quick search, but did get Violence: Reforming the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 at the Home Office site:
2.2 The law on Offences Against the Person has long been criticised by judges and lawyers as archaic, confusing, and unhelpful to all those involved in the criminal justice system. Some have also argued that the state of the law in this areas creates unnecessary and expensive appeals arising from wrong decisions on questions of law. It was against this background of general criticism that in November 1993, as a step towards codification of the criminal law, the Law Commission published its report No 218 "Offences against the Person and General Principles", from which the current proposals are derived.2.3 As the Law Commission acknowledged, their work relied on the earlier Report on Offences Against the Person by the Criminal Law Revision Committee (CLRC) which first suggested a new set of offences to replace the current offences. In particular, they suggested that the distinctions in the 1861 Act between wounding and various types of "bodily harm" should be swept away, in favour of the simpler concept of "causing injury". They also suggested that there should be a distinction between serious injury and other injury, and that in respect of serious injury there should be a distinction between intentionally causing such injury and recklessly causing such injury.
And also Offences Against the Person Bill:
3. - (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally or recklessly causes injury to another.(2) An offence under this section is committed notwithstanding that the injury occurs outside England and Wales if the act causing injury is done in England and Wales.
Also haven't seen if this applies to other communicable diseases as well, or if HIV is being treated as a special case.
Doing more digging. But at a first pass, this looks to be setting/following on a very nasty precedent.
Update: Ok, there's Criminalisation of HIV transmission policy (a Google-rendered PDF) from Terrence Higgins Trust:
Invoking criminal law to regulate HIV transmission may carry serious risks to public health. These include:
- Discouraging people from seeking HIV testing, on the grounds that they can not be prosecuted for what they do not know. This would in turn damage their health if they were positive;
- [L]eading others into a false expectation that someone with HIV would, for fear of prosecution, automatically disclose their status before sex; given that around a third of people are unaware that they have HIV and that many more are afraid or feel unable to disclose their status, this would be very dangerous;
- [D]iverting attention and resources away from those activities that make a real difference in fighting the spread of HIV, such as education; access to testing; support services and the means of protecting against infection [and] increasing the public stigma and prejudice against people with HIV, thereby further marginalising people who are already susceptible to social exclusion.
That's from an August 2002 paper on the topic. It lists some other reasons this is a Very Bad Idea; give it a look.
From About the Terrence Higgins Trust:
THT is the leading HIV & AIDS charity in the UK and the largest in Europe. It was one of the first charities to be set up in response to the HIV epidemic and has been at the forefront of the fight against HIV & AIDS ever since.
Which, depending on your point of view, either makes them far more or far less qualified to comment on this issue.
Wait, did I say "point of view"? I meant, "whether or not you have your head shoved up your arse."
My bad.
Changed "infectious" to "communicable" up in there.
Update: Huh. Forgot to close the list up there. Must be gettin' old.
After reading your article and several others with many varying views I would like to voice an opinion and some questions. Having been intentionally infected with HIV from my now estranged boyfriend, and being in the middle of a 2 year battle to prosecute him I am obviously on the flip side of some of this. I understand the rationalle behind all of the laws and opinions protecting people with HIV. And I understand the down sides that could perhaps be associated with moving into a different way to handle this (through prosecution). However, for people that feel that prosecution is not a good thing then is that to say that we should just say OK do what you want, infect who you want, there will be no consequence to your action. I know that this disease can be spread through carelessness and that we obviously need to continue to hype public awareness and knowledge. But what about the people that receive it from not carelessness, but a mean spirited, angry soul seeking a form of vengence on the world. I'm talking about the people that get it (intentionally) from someone that they are seriously involved with, even married to before it comes out. I don't know many seriously involved, in love or married people who would think that their partner would be lieing to them all the while (which is what happened to me). It is a crime to do that to someone. It would be a crime for me to do that to someone and it should be. I hope to God that if I ever did that to someone they would lock me away in a place that I could not do it to someone else. I feel that if you know that you have this disease then it is most certainly my responsibility to make sure that I inform anyone that I become physically involved with. It is a horrible horrible experience to wake up one day and find out that someone that you loved so much has lied to you and given you a deadly disease on purpose with full knowledge. Anyone that has any idea what that does to a person would understand the need for laws protecting people. Yes, down sides may happen but they are happening already. We have people out here in the world spreading this disease like mad people because they know they can and nothing is hardly ever done about it. Maybe the flip side is that if there were more consequences to these actions then people would not be so apt to do them. You say that then people will not get tested and find out about their condition, and maybe some irrisponsible people would not. But chances are great, I believe, that with todays medicines etc if that person began to get sick from HIV or evolve into AIDS they would probably run to get help that is available to them. And if people would not want to get tested because there is a law against knowingly jeapordizing others without telling them your status, well, what kind of people are those anyway? People that would want to be free to infect someone if they wanted to? The spread is not slowing down. We just aren't prosecuting those that are spreading it on purpose. Maybe, that would be a deterrent for people. And here's one last thought for you. One of the fastest growing infected populations are the teenagers. Now that is scary. And do you think that if someone knowingly, intentionally infected someones child with this they would still feel like that prosecution is not an answer? You're right, they may feel the need for worse consequences. I have HIV. It is very much my responsibility to make as sure as I possibly can that no one else has to suffer because of me. It is morally, ethically and legally the correct thing to do. As it should be. Thank you for your time if you read all of this.
Marcella, I'm not even going to pretend I understand your situation, or have good answers to your questions.
I'm ok with handling intentional infection as a civil matter, but not as a criminal/prosecution type case, and using existing laws rather than creating new legislation specifically regarding HIV.
I feel that would do more harm to society than good, but since I haven't been personally affected maybe my opinion doesn't count for as much.
Would it be ok with you if I broke your comment up with some paragraph breaks, to make it easier to read? I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this, but that big block of text is a bit daunting, and might keep people from reading all that you have to say.
I support criminal prosecution for intentional infecting. Even if you want to take the standpoint that being HIV+ or having AIDS isn't an automatic death sentence these days it's still an assault that causes lasting physical harm to the victim. A bad comparison is that if I hit somebody's arm with a baseball and it breaks it in a bad way that will never heal properly then the victim is going to have a messed up arm the rest of their life. That's a crime and I'll be prosecuted like I deserve to be. But if I intentionally give someone an infection that there is no cure for, that will affect them every moment of the rest of their life, that will most likely cause horrible physical problems not to mention the emotional and psychological ones that come along with infection, it's not at crime? I wouldn't deserve to be prosecuted for that? I must respectfully disagree.
I see your point about treating HIV differently than other life threatening diseases and I have to think about that some more. But honestly the thought of someone intentionally infecting people and not being prosecuted for it just makes me stomach turn.
Aaron:
Thank you for your comments. I am truly interested in all points of view.
Yes, you may break my comments up in paragraphs as you see fit. I was obviously on a role, smile.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, was out of town.
Have a great day.
Marcella
Marcella,
No worries. Don't know if you got my email, but if you'd like to edit the comment yourself and send it to me to re-post, feel free. I can do it, but worry that I might end up changing emphasis or something.
Take care,
Aaron