UK: Law Commission considers HIV criminalisation in great depth, but recommends no change for HIV/STI prosecutions in England & Wales, pending a wider review

Following a scoping consultation which ran from autumn 2014 to spring 2015, the Law Commission (of England and Wales) has now published its report containing their final recommendations to the UK Government.

It recommends the adoption of a modified version of a 1998 draft Bill to replace the outdated Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

However, whereas the 1998 Bill only criminalised intentional disease transmission, their recommendation is to keep the existing law relating to HIV and other serious diseases ((based on Dica and Konzani and clarified through prosecutorial policy and guidelines) which criminalises reckless as well as intentional disease transmission, pending a wider review.

Both in the scoping consultation paper and in this report, we have considered the criminalisation of disease transmission at great length. Many consultees supported fundamental reform of the law in this area. However, we conclude that the issues were more complex than time or space allowed without delaying the main aim of reforming the law of offences against the person. For this reason, we suggest modifications to the draft Bill to preserve the present position pending a wider review involving more input from healthcare professionals and bodies.

The full report, (chapter six: ‘transmission of disease’ is excerpted in full below), includes a detailed discussion of their proposals and the responses of 35 concerned stakeholders (most of them experts in law, public health and human rights. The HIV Justice Network was one of them, and our opinions are quoted throughout.)

The entire report is of interest not just to those working on this issue in England & Wales, but globally. It rehearses, in great detail, nearly all of the arguments for and against HIV (and other STI) prosecutions, and finds that “there is a strong body of opinion, especially in the medical profession and groups concerned with HIV and sexually transmissible infections, that the transmission of these diseases should never be criminal unless done intentionally.”

The report helpfully summarises the five main arguments against overly broad HIV criminalisation:

(1) an offence of reckless transmission encourages people to choose not to be tested, so as not to have the awareness of risk that might constitute recklessness;

(2) it discourages openness with (and by) medical professionals, because they may have to give evidence against their patients;

(3) it encourages people to think that disclosure of HIV status is always a duty, and that if a potential partner has not mentioned his or her status then he or she is not infected;

(4) because of the difficulty of proving transmission, the existence of the offence leads to very wide-ranging and intrusive investigations affecting a great many people, out of all proportion to the small number who will be found deserving of prosecution; and

(5) the whole topic of HIV/AIDS is affected by an atmosphere of fear (often irrationally so), and there is still an undesirable stigma against people.

Nevertheless, although the report states that “it would be preferable to revert to the law as it stood in 1998” when prosecutions were not possible and to use the draft 1998 Bill as it stands (which would only criminalise the intentional transmisison of disease), it comes to a more conservative conclusion.

The discussion of this issue has almost exclusively concerned the transmission of disease by consensual sexual intercourse, and the transmission of HIV in particular. (Also, most of the evidence for the harmful effects of criminalisation is drawn from countries where there are specific offences concerned with HIV and STIs, and may not be relevant to the use of general offences of causing injury.) The same reasoning may well not apply to other diseases and other means of transmitting them, but the draft Bill excludes disease as a whole.

For these reasons, on the evidence we have we do not feel justified in recommending a change to the position in existing law, in which the reckless transmission of disease is in principle included in an offence of causing harm. If there is to be a change, this should follow a wider review which compares the position in different countries and gives full consideration to the transmission of diseases other than by sexual means.

Of note, and of global relevance, following a great deal of discussion (and a broad range of consultation responses) regarding whether not to create an HIV/STI-specific law and/or broaden the scope of the current law to include non-disclosure and/or potential or perceived exposure, the Law Commission is clear.

We do not recommend the creation of specific offences concerned with disease transmission, either in relation to disease in general or in relation to HIV and STIs in particular: this too would require a wider review of all the available evidence. Nor do we recommend an offence of putting a person in danger of contracting a disease, or an offence of failing to disclose an infection to a sexual partner.

Law Commission Scoping Report: TRANSMISSION OF DISEASE (November 2015)

Canada: New film explores the impact of using sexual assault law to prosecute HIV non-disclosure

This week sees the release of an important new short film from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

Consent: HIV non-disclosure and sexual assault law interrogates whether criminalising HIV non-disclosure does what the Supreme Court of Canada believes it does – protect sexual autonomy and dignity – or whether, in fact, it does injustice both to individuals charged and to the Canadian criminal justice system’s approach to sexual violence.

Produced together with Goldelox Productions, with whom the Legal Network also collaborated on their powerful 2012 documentary’ Positive Women: Exposing Injustice, this 28-minute film features eight experts in HIV, sexual assault and law whose commentary raises many questions about HIV-related legal developments in Canada.

At a time when society seems to be taking the prevalence of sexual

violence and rape culture more seriously, this film dares to ask some

difficult questions about its limits in the law. The law of sexual

assault is intended to protect women’s sexual autonomy, equality

and dignity, yet as applied with respect to alleged HIV non-disclosure,

these values are not necessarily being advanced. Through expert

testimonies, Consent shines a light on the systemic obstacles women

face in disclosing their HIV status, points to the dangerous health

and human rights outcomes of applying such a harsh charge as

aggravated sexual assault to HIV non-disclosure, and makes the

argument that the law needs to better protect those who are living

with and vulnerable to HIV. Consent demonstrates that advocacy

efforts opposing the overly broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure

must address the use of sexual assault law and that such efforts must

do so alongside feminist allies.

From: http://www.consentfilm.org/about-the-film/

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has for some time been exploring the implications of using sexual assault law to prosecute HIV non-disclosure cases, given the marked differences between the types of conduct that are typically referred to as sexual assault (including rape) and HIV non-disclosure cases.

In April 2014, the Legal Network convened leading feminist scholars, front-line workers, activists and legal experts for a ground-breaking dialogue on the (mis)use of sexual assault laws in cases of HIV non-disclosure. Consent: HIV non-disclosure and sexual assault law was filmed during this convening.

Their analysis demonstrates that the use of sexual assault law in the HIV non-disclosure context – where the sexual activity is consensual other than the non-disclosure – is a poor fit and can ultimately have a detrimental impact on sexual assault law as a tool to advance gender equality and renounce gender-based violence.

The Consent website ( in English / in French ) also lists future screenings across Canada, which will be accompanied by panels and workshops, as part of an ongoing strategy to build up allies among women’s rights advocates for the longer-term work.

A discussion guide will also soon be available.

Canada: New study finds majority of women living with HIV who also inject drugs face legal obligation to disclose HIV status to sexual partners

A new study presented to the International AIDS Society conference in Vancouver, Canada last week (IAS 2015) found that 44 per cent of participants within a research cohort of people who use injection drugs living with HIV in Vancouver would be legally obligated to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners. Within the study, 65 per cent of male participants compared with only 45 percent of female participants satisfied the Supreme Court of Canada’s legal test for HIV non-disclosure, based on the October 2012 ruling in R v. Mabior.

Under current case law, people living with HIV must disclose their HIV status to a partner before sexual activity unless both a condom is used and a low HIV viral load is present.

The vast majority (98 per cent) of cohort participants in this study either self-reported always using a condom or achieved a low HIV viral load (<1500 copies/ml), and as such took steps to reduce the risk of HIV transmission to sexual partners. A person living with HIV who is appropriately treated and sustained on effective antiretroviral therapy will have an undetectable viral load, meaning the chance they will spread the virus is extremely low.

“The law as it currently stands places an additional veil of threat over an already vulnerable and criminalized population within one of Canada’s most impoverished communities,” said British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS Director, and IAS 2015 conference co-chair, Dr. Julio Montaner. “Current non-HIV non-disclosure laws in Canada are not aligned with the state of the scientific evidence, and as a result create further stigma and fear around HIV.”

“The criminalization of HIV non-disclosure can affect people living with HIV in Canada in many ways,” said Valerie Nicholson, an Aboriginal woman living with HIV and the Chair of the Board of Directors at Positive Living BC. “People may face criminal charges for not disclosing, which can lead to lengthy and damaging criminal prosecutions – based on no scientific evidence. In the wider community, the law increases stigma and discrimination, does not account for power or control imbalances in relationships, compromises our ability to lead healthy sex lives and may introduce questions about the limits of confidentiality in the health care setting.”

The poster presentation of the study, “Gender differences in meeting legal obligations to disclose HIV status within a cohort of HIV-positive illicit drug users in Vancouver” is below.

Patterson, Sophie. Gender differences in meeting legal obligations to disclose HIV status within a cohort o…

World Health Organization publishes analysis of impact of overly broad HIV criminalisation on public health

A new report from the World Health Organization, Sexual Health, Human Rights and the Law, adds futher weight to the body of evidence supporting arguments that overly broad HIV criminalisation does more harm than good to the HIV response.

Drawing from a review of public health evidence and extensive research into human rights law at international, regional and national levels, the report shows how each country’s laws and policies can either support or deter good sexual health, and that those that support the best public health outcomes “are [also] consistent with human rights standards and their own human rights obligations.”

The report covers eight broad areas relating to sexual health, human rights and the law, including: non-discrimination; criminalisation; state regulation of marriage and family; gender identity/expression; sexual and intimate partner violence; quality of sexual health services; sexuality and sexual health information; and sex work.

The authors of the report note that it provides “a unique and innovative piece of research and analysis. Other UN organizations are examining the links between health, human rights and the law: the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP’s) Global Commission on HIV and the Law published its report in 2012, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and United Nations Special Rapporteurs regularly report to the Human Rights Council on the impact of laws and policies on various aspects of sexual health. Nevertheless, this is the first report that combines these aspects, specifically with a public health emphasis.”

The points and recommendations made relating to overly broad HIV criminalisation (italicised for ease of reference) are included in full below.

Executive Summary: The use of criminal law (page 3)

All legal systems use criminal law to deter, prosecute and punish harmful behaviour, and to protect individuals from harm. However, criminal law is also applied in many countries to prohibit access to and provision of certain sexual and reproductive health information and services, to punish HIV transmission and a wide range of consensual sexual conduct occurring between competent persons, including sexual relations outside marriage, same-sex sexual behaviour and consensual sex work. The criminalization of these behaviours and actions has many negative consequences for health, including sexual health. Persons whose consensual sexual behaviour is deemed a criminal offence may try to hide it from health workers and others, for fear of being stigmatized, arrested and prosecuted. This may deter people from using health services, resulting in serious health problems such as untreated STIs and unsafe abortions, for fear of negative reactions to their behaviour or health status. In many circumstances, those who do access health services report discrimination and ill treatment by health-care providers.

International human rights bodies have increasingly called for decriminalization of access to and provision of certain sexual and reproductive health information and services, and for removal of punishments for HIV transmission and a wide range of consensual sexual conduct occurring between competent persons. National courts in different parts of the world have played an important role in striking down discriminatory criminal laws, including recognizing the potentially negative health effects.

3.4.5 HIV status (pages 22-23)

Although being HIV-positive is not itself indicative of sexual transmission of the infection, individuals are often discriminated against for their HIV-positive status based on a presumption of sexual activity that is often considered socially unacceptable.

In addition, in response to the fact that most HIV infections are due to sexual transmission, a number of countries criminalized transmission of, or exposure to, HIV, fuelling stigma, discrimination and fear, and discouraging people from getting tested for HIV, thus undermining public health interventions to address the epidemic.

Even where persons living with HIV/AIDS may be able, in principle, to access health services and information in the same way as others, fear of discrimination, stigma and violence may prevent them from doing so. Discrimination against people living with HIV is widespread, and is associated with higher levels of stress, depression, suicidal ideation, low self-esteem and poorer quality of life, as well as a lower likelihood of seeking HIV services and a higher likelihood of reporting poor access to care.

HIV transmission has been criminalized in various ways. In some countries criminal laws have been applied through a specific provision in the criminal code and/or a provision that allows for a charge of rape to be escalated to “aggravated rape” if the victim is thought to have been infected with HIV as a result. In some cases, HIV transmission is included under generic crimes related to public health, which punish the propagation of disease or epidemics, and/or the infliction of “personal injury” or “grievous bodily harm”.

Contrary to the HIV-prevention rationale that such laws will act as a deterrent and provide retribution, there is no evidence to show that broad application of the criminal law to HIV transmission achieves either criminal justice or public health goals. On the contrary, such laws fuel stigma, discrimination and fear, discouraging people from being tested to find out their HIV status, and undermining public health interventions to address the epidemic. Thus, such laws may actually increase rather decrease HIV transmission.

Women are particularly affected by these laws since they often learn that they are HIV-positive before their male partners do, since they are more likely to access health services. Furthermore, for many women it is either difficult or impossible to negotiate safer sex or to disclose their status to a partner for fear of violence, abandonment or other negative consequences, and they may therefore face prosecution as a result of their failure to disclose their status. Criminal laws have also been used against women who transmit HIV to their infants if they have not taken the necessary steps to prevent transmission. Such use of criminal law has been strongly condemned by human rights bodies.

Various human rights and political bodies have expressed concern about the harmful effects of broadly criminalizing the transmission of HIV. International policy guidance recommends against specific criminalization of HIV transmission. Human rights bodies as well as United Nations’ specialized agencies, such as UNAIDS, have stated that the criminalization of HIV transmission in the instance of intentional, malicious transmission is the only circumstance in which the use of criminal law may be appropriate in relation to HIV. States are urged to limit criminalization to those rare cases of intentional transmission, where a person knows his or her HIV-positive status, acts with the intent to transmit HIV, and does in fact transmit it.

Human rights bodies have called on states to ensure that a person’s actual or perceived health status, including HIV status, is not a barrier to realizing human rights. When HIV status is used as the basis for differential treatment with regard to access to health care, education, employment, travel, social security, housing and asylum, this amounts to restricting human rights and it constitutes discrimination. International human rights standards affirm that the right to non-discrimination includes protection of children living with HIV and people with presumed same-sex conduct. Human rights standards also disallow the restriction of movement or incarceration of people with transmissible diseases (e.g. HIV/AIDS) on grounds of national security or the preservation of public order, unless such serious measures can be justified.

To protect the human rights of people living with HIV, states have been called on to implement laws that help to ensure that persons living with HIV/AIDS can access health services, including antiretroviral therapy. This might mean, as in the case of the Philippines, for example, explicitly prohibiting hospitals and health institutions from denying a person with HIV/AIDS access to health services or charging them more for those services than a person without HIV/AIDS (167).

International guidance also suggests that such laws should be consistent with states’ international human rights obligations and that instead of applying criminal law to HIV transmission, governments should expand programmes that have been proven to reduce HIV transmission while protecting the human rights both of people living with HIV and those who are HIV-negative.

3.6 Legal and policy implications (pages 29-30)

5. Does the state consider that establishing and applying specific criminal provisions on HIV transmission can be counter-productive for health and the respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights, and that general criminal law should be used strictly for intentional transmission of HIV?

The full report can be downloaded from the WHO’s Sexual and Reproductive Health website.

UK: Law Commission scoping consultation deadline this week; key findings and outputs from ‘Criminalizing Contagion’ seminar series may help inform the process

This week, the Law Commission – which reviews areas of the law in England and Wales that have become unduly complicated, outdated or unfair – will conclude its scoping consultation of the reform the Offences Against The Person Act, the law that is currently used to prosecute people living with HIV (and occasionally other sexually transmitted infections; one each so far for gonorrhoea, hepatitis B and genital herpes) for ‘reckless’ or ‘intentional’ transmission, as grievous bodily harm.

The deadline for responses is this Wednesday 11 February 2015.

The consultation is a scoping review – it is looking at the scope of whether a further full review of the existing law should take place, rather than examining what the law should be.

The consultation asks six key questions (out of 38) specifically relating to HIV (and STI) criminalisation:

We consider that future reform of offences against the person should take account of the ramifications of disease transmission. Do consultees agree?
We also consider that in such reform consideration should be given to: (1) whether disease should in principle fall within the definition of injury in any reforming statute that may be based on the draft Bill; (2) whether, if the transmission of sexual infections through consensual intercourse is to be excluded, this should be done by means of a specific exemption limited to that situation. This could be considered in a wider review; alternatively (3) whether the transmission of disease should remain within the offences as in existing law. Do consultees agree?
If the transmission of disease is to be included in any future reform including offences causing injury, it will be necessary to choose between the following possible rules about the disclosure of the risk of infection, namely: (1) that D should be bound to disclose facts indicating a risk of infection only if the risk is significant; or (2) that D should be bound to disclose facts indicating a risk of infection in all circumstances; or that whether D was justified in exposing V to that risk without disclosing it should be a question for the jury in each particular case. Do consultees have any preference as to these possible rules?
We consider the reform of offences against the person should consider the extent to which transmission of minor infections would be excluded from the scope of injury offences. Do consultees agree?
Do consultees consider that future reform should pursue the possibility of including specialized offences of transmission of infection, endangerment or non-disclosure?
Do consultees have observations on the use of ASBOs, SOPOs or other means of penalizing non-disclosure?

Responses to the scoping consultation, including those from the HIV Justice Network, will be published soon. Following the consultation, the Law Commission will decide on their recommendations for the scope of reform in this area and present them to Government in the form of a scoping report.

In the meantime, the summary of key findings and outputs from the Economic and Social Research Council’s seminar series ‘Criminalizing Contagion: legal and ethical challenges of disease transmission and the criminal law’, which took place at the Universities of Southampton and Manchester from January 2012 until September 2014, provides a comprehensive legal and academic overview regarding how the law should treat a person who transmits, or exposes others to the risk of, a serious infection such as HIV.

Written jointly by David Gurnham, Catherine Stanton and Hannah Quirk, the report provides a detailed overview of the discussions in the seminars as well as the numerous publications arising from them, and acknowledges contributions made by various groups and individuals.

UK: Study of people with HIV in Manchester finds legal literacy lacking on criminal prosecutions

People living with HIV in Manchester appear to have little understanding of their rights and responsibilities under English law to avoid prosecution for ‘reckless’ HIV transmission, according to a study presented to the British HIV Association Conference in Liverpool earlier this year.

Matthew Phillips and Gabriel Schembri surveyed 33 individuals (85% male, 64% gay, average age 36) attending the Manchester Centre for Sexual Health. The questionnaire contained four key prompts to discuss personal understanding of the law in relation to HIV. Participants were invited to write as much or as little as they wished in response to each of the prompts.

The investigators found that many of the participants had either a flawed understanding of the law, the sentences that could be passed, or both. They also found that some participants had very strong views on the morality of HIV transmission and had a range of views on the appropriateness of prosecutions for reckless HIV transmission.

When asked if the law had ever been discussed at their HIV clinic, or where they got their information from, many answered ‘no’ or ‘none’.

Participants discussed rights and responsibilities in relationship only to themselves, with responsibilities of a person with HIV potentially varying based on duration and status of a relationship. Conspicuous by its absence was any discussion of partner responsibility in attempting to avoid acquisition of HIV.

The authors concluded that

People living with HIV sometimes have a weak grasp of how the law relates to their behaviours, which places them at greater risk of prosecution in addition to unfounded fears about what is actually prosecutable in England and Wales. Relating HIV to the law brought out a complex range of issues, ranging from technicalities of how to disclose in relationships to morality of transmission. Participants considered relationship status to be important in relation to the law rather than actual transmission risk. Using Grounded Theory to inform a hypothesis, we can hypothesise that information regarding the law in relationship to HIV transmission is not reaching those actually living with HIV. Effort must be made by clinicians and advocacy groups to ensure that PLWHA have accurate information about the circumstances under which prosecution may occur, with sensitive exploration of beliefs which may impact on this understanding.

The poster of their presentation is below. The full text is currently in press in the Journal of the Faculty of Reproductive Healthcare.

Phillips M, Schembri G. HIV Transmission and the Law- What Do People Living With HIV Understand?

Research agenda into the public health impact of overly broad HIV criminalisation highlights five areas where researchers and advocates can collaborate

A newly published report suggests a number of concrete ways that research into the impact of overly broad HIV criminalisation on public health can move the policy agenda forward, and help reform laws and create better policies for people living with HIV and most affected communities.

The report is the result of an international workshop on HIV Prevention and the Criminal Law held in Toronto, Canada on April 27th and 28th 2013 that also led to the creation of the HIV Justice Network’s video documentary, More Harm Than Good.

The workshop’s aim was to support, encourage and further develop emerging research on the public health implications of criminalising HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission. It was the first international meeting focused exclusively on sharing, critiquing and strengthening new empirical research on this topic.

The report explores three key themes that arose over the course of workshop discussions – (1) the relationship between research and advocacy; 2) the implications of HIV-related criminalisation for public health practice; and (3) the potential and limits of public health research for criminal law reform – and offers suggestions for new directions for future research on the public health implications of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission.

Workshop discussions emphasised that research on the public health implications of HIV-related criminalisation is able to do the following:

Identify the impacts of HIV-related criminalisation on HIV prevention, care, treatment and support. Research into such impacts is especially important in light of new approaches that respond to the HIV epidemic by increasing the uptake of HIV testing and counselling, linking HIV-positive people to health and social services, initiating HIV antiretroviral therapy as early as possible, and retaining people living with HIV/AIDS in medical care.
Elucidate the influence of criminalising HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission on the attitudes, opinions, beliefs and activities of people living with HIV/AIDS, people and communities at risk, service providers in public health and clinical settings and staff in ASOs and community-based organisations.
Inform efforts to respond to the potential discriminatory enforcement of criminal laws by identifying the demographic patterns associated with HIV-related criminal prosecutions.
Provide public health authorities with evidence required to become more engaged in the issue, to develop policy and programmes, and to comment publicly on an increasingly important facet of the HIV epidemic.
Identify legal, ethical and practice issues faced by public health and clinical staff as a result of HIV criminalisation, and provide evidence to support legally and ethically sound policy and practice.
Assess the efficacy and costs and benefits of different policy options to address HIV transmission.
Inform decisions by legislators, criminal prosecutors and courts in a number of jurisdictions.

The meeting identified five main suggestions for moving the research field forward.

1. Explore novel analytical and methodological approaches

Given the complexity of HIV criminalisation, applied and theoretical research agendas should be structured broadly, inquire into a wide range of possible “implications” and account for the intersectionality of factors such as race, class, migration, colonisation and gender. New research would benefit from a deeper engagement with socio-legal studies and criminology.

Further suggestions:

Ground research questions in a health and human rights or an intersectional/anti-oppression framework as alternatives to a public health implications framework.
Critically engage with mainstream feminist analysis that supports HIV criminalisation.
Use qualitative approaches, including narrative analysis, ethnographic methods and participatory action research to:
Capture issues of importance to, and respond to the needs of, communities of people living with and at risk of HIV;
Document and explore experiences of people who have been criminally charged and/or prosecuted as well as those who have brought forward police complaints;
Explore HIV criminalisation as a complex, constructed and varied social phenomenon.

2. Conduct intervention research

Research on the public health implications of criminalising HIV non-disclosure would be enhanced by studies exploring the processes and outcomes of interventions that offer alternatives to criminalisation and/or that seek to prevent HIV transmission.

Further suggestions:

Conduct research on and explore the implications of using restorative justice approaches for criminal offences related to HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission.
Evaluate the impact of new or existing case management strategies that focus on sexual activities that risk incarceration and HIV transmission:
Explore collaborations with HIV/AIDS Service Organisations (ASOs) and other community-based organisations as sites for intervention research. ASOs offer a less coercive and more supportive environment to address challenges of concern to the public health and the criminal justice systems;
Conduct ethnographic research on the “Calgary Model.” (See ‘A framework to consider for the non-disclosure of HIV/AIDS – the Calgary Health Region model’ halfway down this page) The Calgary Model is a policy-informed public health case management model that has been endorsed by policy makers in Canada, yet has not been empirically studied.

3. Conduct research on factors that underpin and drive HIV criminal prosecutions

Research on the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission has yet to rigorously explore the various factors that encourage criminal prosecutions. There has been very little research involving people who initiate criminal complaints, their motivations

for doing so, their relationships with people living with HIV/AIDS and their experience of the criminal justice system. Relatedly, we know very little about police and prosecutors, their understandings of laws related to HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission, their knowledge of HIV and HIV transmission, and their attitudes towards people living with HIV/AIDS. There is a strong need for research that explores the underlying social, structural, behavioural and cultural factors that drive HIV-related criminalisation.

Further suggestions:

Prioritize police, prosecutors and complainants in new research.
Conduct research on the moral and other discourses that underpin criminalization and that inform the perspectives of the general population, those living with and at risk of HIV, legislators and policy makers and those who work in the criminal justice and public health systems.

Potential research foci include:

norms of sexual practice in communities as contrasted with principles of “good behaviour” applied by courts;
lessons from harm reduction and drug policy reformists who have had some success in working with police in opposing drug prohibition and the “war on drugs”;
critical analysis of how the “good versus bad” person living with HIV/AIDS is discursively constructed in media and elsewhere;
how issues of “personal responsibility” and “wrong” conduct get constructed, expressed and enacted, and to what end;
redesigning existing quantitative surveys to more robustly inquire into the attitudes, opinions and beliefs of respondents;
a moral mapping and deconstruction of pro-criminalisation arguments.

4. Continue to research the implications of criminalization for those who work in HIV prevention and in clinical and support services for people living with HIV/AIDS

Additional research on how criminalisation affects the work of various practitioners engaged in HIV prevention and the treatment, care and support of people living with HIV/AIDS can further our understanding of the broad implications of criminalizing processes. Comparative studies across national jurisdictions would yield important results.

Further suggestions:

Build on existing studies by incorporating mixed methodologies into research designs:
Investigate innovative and more rigorous approaches to sampling than has been the case in existing studies.
Explore how changes in front-line practice related to criminalisation may be connected with broader policy and program changes.
Investigate the discursive and other bases of public health response (e.g. explore the origins and impact of “unwilling and unable” terminology in Canadian public health policy).

5. Conduct media research

The mass media are an important source of public information about the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission. While we have many accounts of how the media coverage of HIV criminal cases contributes to HIV-related stigma, we have little published research that draws on rigorous sampling methods to explore this question.

Further suggestions:

Conduct research to understand the impact of media coverage on communities and people living with and affected by HIV, the general public and legal and policy decision makers.
Inquire into the association between media coverage and stigma especially in relation to African, Caribbean and Black communities.
Systematically analyze the narrative and rhetorical conventions used by mainstream media when reporting on and editorialising about HIV criminal cases.
Investigate the use of media by police as an investigative tool.

This article is only a summary of the highlights of the report, and the entire meeting report is well worth reading.

Public Health Implications of Criminalizing HIV Non-Disclosure, Exposure and Transmission (January 2014)

The Criminalization of HIV Transmission and Exposure Working Group from Yale University’s Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (CIRA) have also published a research agenda focused primarily on the the research needs of advocates in the United States. This was based on a meeting held in November 2011 and authored by some of the same participants that attended the Toronto workshop, including Carol L. Galletly, Zita Lazzarini and Eric Mykhalovskiy.

This meeting concluded that the research agenda should include studies of:

(1) the impact of US HIV exposure laws on public health systems and practices;(2) enforcement of these laws, including arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing; (3) alternatives to HIV exposure laws; and (4) direct and opportunity costs of enforcement.

You can read the full research agenda, originally published in the American Journal of Public Health in August 2013, below.

Criminalization of HIV Transmission and Exposure – Research and Policy Agenda (August 2013)

African HIV criminalisation achievements and challenges highlighted at ICASA 2013

The African continent has more countries with overly broad and vague HIV-specific laws relating to HIV non-disclosure, exposure and/or transmission than any other global region, nearly all of which have been enacted in the past decade.

Although North America is the continent with the most known prosecutions, 26 African countries have overly broad and/ or vague HIV-specific criminal laws with a further three countries considering new HIV-specific criminal laws. This is worrying and disappointing given the growing evidence base and consensus of international agencies that such laws are counterproductive to HIV prevention efforts and generally fail to deliver ‘justice’.

Although there are few known prosecutions the majority of those prosecuted have been women – who are usually the first in a couple to know their HIV status due to routine antenatal testing and who are often erroneously accused of bringing HIV into a relationship.

In addition, South Africa recently prosecuted alleged criminal HIV transmission as attempted murder despite no evidence of intent to harm. (Read the judgement from the High Court of South Africa on alleged HIV exposure being attempted murder here.)

However, there have been some positive legal changes brought about by local advocacy supported by international civil society and UN agencies. Since 2010, at least four countries – Congo, Guinea, Senegal and Togo – have revised their existing HIV-related legislation or adopted new legislation that restrict use of criminal law to cases of intentional transmission.

And more recently advocacy in Malawi and Nigeria has resulted in the removal of overly broad HIV-specific criminal statutes from draft omnibus HIV Bills.

View the poster below or download the A4 double-sided printable version of the poster here.

Advancing HIV Justice: Achievements and challenges in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation – African…