US: Final report of the Georgia House Study Committee on access to care calls for modernisation of Georgia’s HIV criminal laws

A Moment of Outrage with a Silver Lining

Betty Price’s comments about HIV spark backlash, while her committee quietly issues a well-reasoned critique of Georgia’s HIV criminal laws

by Catherine Hanssens, CHLP Executive Director

Back in October 2017, there was a tsunami of outrage and media coverage in response to comments made by Georgia State Representative Betty Price during a committee hearing on access to HIV care and prevention. In response to testimony about the problem of access to the remarkable health and prevention benefits of current HIV treatment in Georgia, Price queried:

“… [A]re there any methods legally that we could do that would curtail the spread? I don’t want to say the quarantine word, but… It seems to me it’s almost frightening, the number of people who are living that are potentially carriers… with the potential to spread, whereas in the past they died more readily and then at that point they are not posing a risk. So we’ve got a huge population posing a risk if they are not in treatment.”

Even if Price’s comments were, as she later said, posed to provoke discussion, elected officials have no legitimate excuse for suggesting that people living longer with HIV are a public health problem, or that quarantine should ever be on the table.

Unfortunately, the view that sexually active PLHIV need to be “legally” contained is still pretty widely shared, yet rarely gets the press Price’s comments received. Media reports of a prosecutor referring to HIV, a treatable disease, as the equivalent of a “death sentence,” or calling sex while living with HIV the equivalent of pointing a loaded gun at someone’s head have yet to receive the type of outrage leveled at Price. What’s worse, Georgia’s criminal HIV law has effectively quarantined multiple PLHIV through felony convictions for sex without disclosure without any comparable national cry of outrage in response.

Media coverage of the Price controversy glanced over the substance of these hearings and what really should have been the big news—that local HIV advocates assembled an impressive panel of experts to testify about barriers to HIV treatment, including what likely was a first: a representative of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presenting powerful testimony in support of modernizing Georgia’s HIV criminal law.

And there’s more. Just a few weeks ago, in December 2017, the committee released its Final Report of the Georgia House Study Committee on Georgians’ Barriers to Access to Adequate Health Care. The report’s findings and recommendations are surprisingly progressive, and are based in no small part on the efforts of Georgia advocates who made sure committee members were equipped with information about the harms of Georgia’s HIV criminal laws and the need for reform.

In analyzing HIV care and prevention, the Committee’s report found that “[c]riminal exposure laws had no effect on detectable HIV prevention.” The report’s analysis goes on to echo the Department of Justice’s 2014 recommendation that these laws should be eliminated except in cases where a separate sex offense such as rape and an actual risk of transmission is involved; or when evidence clearly demonstrates that the person acted with the intent to transmit HIV and engaged in behavior significantly likely to do so. The report also cites a 2013 resolution from the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA), noting the failure of HIV criminal laws “to account for (1) the prevention measures, (2) the reality of disproportionate sentencing that often occurs, and (3) the fact that the laws are based on outdated beliefs about HIV transmission.”

Other highlights from the report’s findings on HIV criminalization include:

  • A remarkably salient and progressive observation about disparities affecting sex workers:

“Consider that both prostitution and solicitation of sodomy are misdemeanors under Georgia law when the accused is not infected with HIV. These crimes only become felonies when the accused merely knows they are infected with HIV and fails to disclose their status. Thus, the current [HIV law] falls short by penalizing behavior that does not require the type of intentional behavior for which an enhanced penalty is typically reserved….”

  • Recognition of the inequity of allowing prosecution of PLHIV under both an HIV criminal law and other sections of the criminal code:

“In Georgia, prosecutions of those infected with HIV whose actions fall under [GA’s HIV criminal law] has not been limited to those code sections. In fact, there are documented cases where the state has pursued charges of aggravated assault against an accused in such situations. This inequitable disparity in prosecution of HIV-infected people should be addressed in any reforms made to these laws.”

  • Recognition that Georgia’s HIV criminal law creates additional untenable dangers for survivors of assault:

“Because Georgia’s HIV law] criminalizes behavior upon mere knowledge of status, there is fear among those living with HIV of prosecution under this statute when they are victims of a sexual assault involving behaviors outlined in this code section. To curb this fear and empower such victims to report these serious assaults, the law should be clarified to account for these scenarios by explicitly exempting such victims from prosecution.“

In short, a legislative committee in a Southern state that included four Republicans and only one Democrat has issued a report calling for modernization of Georgia’s HIV criminal laws so that they are consistent with current scientific knowledge, focus more on intent to transmit rather than knowledge of status, and incorporate recognition of risk reduction measures. In the discussion supporting these recommendations, the committee notes opportunities and shared responsibility for preventing HIV transmission in intimate relationships involving people living with HIV and their HIV negative partners. It highlights the unacceptable disparities in the use of unique liability standards and onerous punishments against people living with HIV; the legitimacy of HIV positive sexual assault survivors’ fear of reporting crimes against them because they know the prosecutorial table could be turned against them; and the inequity of turning a potential misdemeanor into a serious felony when a sex worker is living with HIV.

This is big news and important progress for which Georgia advocates deserve a great deal of credit. The Committee’s findings should also be a call to action for advocates working to modernize these laws across the country. In a challenging political climate, where we see a frustrating lack of outrage among the press and the general public when it comes to HIV criminal laws, outcomes such as this demonstrate that while the substantive work may not grab headlines, it will have a more profound, lasting influence on public health and policy.

Somalia: New law against rape in Somaliland with sentence enhancement to life imprisonment when HIV is transmitted

Somaliland Parliament Passes First Bill Criminalizing Rape

WASHINGTON / HARGEISA — 

The parliament in the self-declared republic of Somaliland has approved a bill criminalizing rape for the first time, and requiring prison terms for individuals convicted of the crime.

The bill, passed Saturday, is the first of its kind in Somaliland criminalizing not only rape but all gender-based violations against women. It lays out a process to investigate the cases and prosecute perpetrators.

The bill now goes to the upper house of parliament and could be the first major legislation signed by President Muse Bihi Abdi who was elected in November.

Women’s organizations and human rights activists in Somaliland welcomed the passage of the bill, which was approved by 46 of the 51 MPs present.

Among those praising the parliamentary approval was Nafisa Yusuf Mohamed, the executive director of Nagaad, a women’s organization based in Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland.

“We have been working on this bill since 2011. It has gone through different processes, but we are very happy that it has been adopted,” she told VOA Somali. “The people of Somaliland have welcomed it, we congratulate the parliament for discharging their duties.”

Under the bill, an attempted rape conviction would carry a four to seven-year jail sentence. An individual who rapes a victim using force or threats would get 15 to 20 years. If the victim is under the age of 15, the perpetrator gets 20 to 25 years.

Attackers who cause bodily harm or infect their victim with HIV in addition to committing rape would receive life in prison.

An increasing number of reported rape cases are related to gang rape. Gang rape was not mentioned in the existing penal code, but the new bill has a specific provision for gang rape which carries 20 to 25 years imprisonment.

Recently, the Somaliland Human Rights Center said rape is one of the least reported crimes in Somaliland. It said that in 2017, 81 rape cases were prosecuted, a small number compared to the number of alleged victims.

No more mediation by elders

In the past, elders have mediated between the families of the rapist and the victim, often leading to a lack of justice for the victim. In few cases, a victim ended up marrying her rapist under pressure from her family or the elders.

Mohamed Hersi Farah is an elder who performed mediations but says he stopped it in 2006.

“Before we intervened in individual cases and we dealt with clans, and there were no laws. But now there are gang rapes with more than 10 people involved [in a case]. We didn’t know where to start,” Farah said.

The new bill criminalizes mediation and other attempts to solve rape cases outside the courts.

“Anyone who attempts or mediate a rape case in this way could go to jail. We hope this will scare those who performed this outside the court who will now realize the government will jail them,” says the chairman of the human rights center, lawyer Guled Ahmed Jama.

Jama says he welcomes the fact the bill specifically focuses on rape and gender based violations and empowers law enforcement agencies powers to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators.

“This is a modern bill specifically on rape, previously rape was just an article under the penal code; this is a comprehensive bill,” he said.

Somaliland declared secession from rest of Somalia in May 1991 but so far failed to gain international recognition.

Barkhad Mohamud Kariye contributed to this report.

Canada: Prosecutions should not hinge on viral load, punishing people lacking access to treatment, but on actual, intentional transmission

Ontario, Canada Moves to Reduce HIV Non-Disclosure Prosecutions, Leaves Behind PLHIV Lacking Effective Health Care

Changes to HIV criminalization laws in Canada highlight the importance of the Consensus Statement on HIV TasP in Criminal Law Reform urging that prosecutions not hinge on an individual’s viral load but on actual, intentional transmission.

by Kate Boulton, CHLP Staff Attorney

Earlier this month Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi and Health Minister Eric Hoskins issued a joint statement announcing that Crown Attorneys will no longer prosecute cases of HIV non-disclosure where the person living with HIV has had a suppressed viral load for at least six months. Their rationale is that “HIV should be considered through a public health lens, rather than a criminal justice one, whenever possible.”

The statement occurred in tandem with the release of a report by the Canadian Department of Justice calling for a significant shift in the way cases of HIV non-disclosure are treated by the Canadian criminal justice system. The report concludes that criminal liability should not apply in instances where a person was on treatment, where a condom was used, or in cases of oral sex because these circumstances do not pose “a realistic possibility of transmission.”

Of course it makes sense to acknowledge that any move to reduce the number of prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure in Canada is a good thing. That said, the Ontario AG and Health Minister’s announcement does not go nearly far enough; it suggests that the appropriate “public health lens” is simply to narrow the discriminatory criminal legal system targeting of people living with HIV to those without effective health care.

A statement issued jointly by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO), Canadian Positive People Network (CPPN), the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law + HIV Exposure (CLHE), and the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization essentially makes that point, observing that the Ontario announcement “falls well short” of even the relatively modest recommendations made in Justice Canada’s report. Citing the Community Consensus Statement released in November 2017 by the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCHRC), the organizations stress that “criminal prosecutions should be limited to cases of actual, intentional transmission of HIV.”

Earlier this year, the Center for HIV Law & Policy and partners addressed precisely this issue in the Consensus Statement on HIV “Treatment as Prevention” in Criminal Law Reform. The Consensus Statement cautioned against the use of viral detectability as a bright line test in HIV criminal law reform.  By explicitly relying on viral detectability as a dispositive factor in the decision to prosecute or not prosecute someone, the announcement in Ontario manifests the major concerns articulated in the Consensus Statement. 

The Consensus Statement on HIV “Treatment as Prevention” in Criminal Law Reform outlines how reliance on viral detectability in HIV criminal law reform efforts poses a number of harmful, if unintended, consequences:

  • Leads to using a person’s health status or access to health care as determinative of guilt or innocence, rather than a demonstrated intent to do another person harm;
  • Provides support to the misguided perception among prosecutors and policymakers that HIV is somehow easy to transmit or that sex without the benefit of treatment is inherently “risky,” and that an HIV diagnosis is akin to a “death sentence.”
  • Obscures or deemphasizes other essential arguments for HIV criminal law reform, including the right of PLHIV to be free from state-sanctioned stigma and discrimination on the basis of health status alone, and fundamental principles of fairness and justice.

National HIV data in Canada illustrate the problem this approach poses for nearly half of all Canadian PLHIV. At the end of 2014, just over half (54%) of the estimated total PLHIV in Canada were virally suppressed.[1]

Regardless of the country, HIV law and policies must reflect the hard fact that disparities in access to treatment and the ability to reach long-term viral suppression inevitably interact with disparities in the criminal legal system. The synergy between these two discriminatory and deeply unequal systems will result in compounded harm for communities that are already disproportionately affected by HIV criminalization:[2] sexual and gender minorities,[3] Indigenous communities,[4] individuals experiencing poverty or homelessness, people who use drugs,[5] sex workers,[6] and people of color.[7]

Staff from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network have also flagged this tension, writing in a June 2017 blog post that advocates must be mindful of how new scientific advancements are incorporated into HIV criminal reform efforts:

While a growing body of research provides further evidence to consider when determining what constitutes a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission,” advocacy concerning cases of HIV non-disclosure must be informed by the unique challenges that marginalized groups living with HIV face in attaining undetectable status, so that the criminal law does not reproduce further inequities. Advocates must also acknowledge that the criminalization of people living with HIV has a negative impact on public health, regardless of viral load. Without laws and policies to ensure the removal of all barriers to HIV prevention and treatment, new scientific discoveries and their role in the courts may leave disparities between people living with HIV intact — or ultimately, do more to perpetuate them.

The Center for HIV Law & Policy welcomes Canada’s efforts to move away from the discriminatory and harmful criminalization of PLHIV. But Canadians deserve a more just, inclusive, and transformational conception of HIV criminal law reform that leaves no one behind, and which does not serve to reproduce and entrench inequalities in the public health and criminal legal systems.

More resources can be found on our website: www.hivlawandpolicy.org and at www.hivtaspcrimlaw.org


[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/summary-measuring-canada-progress-90-90-90-hiv-targets.html (As of 2014, approximately 80% of PLHIV in Canada were diagnosed. 76% of those diagnosed were receiving ARV treatment, 89% of whom were virally suppressed).  See also Peter Rebeiro et al., Sex, Race and HIV Risk Disparities in Discontinuity of HIV Care After Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation in the United States and Canada, 31 AIDS Patient Care & STDs 129 (2017).

[2] http://www.aidslaw.ca/site/hiv-criminalization-in-canada-key-trends-and-patterns/?lang=en (“[T]he [HIV] criminal law is increasingly used against people living with HIV from marginalized populations. Since Mabior, the proportion of Black men charged in HIV non-disclosure cases has grown . . . The proportion of gay men charged in HIV non-disclosure cases has also increased.”

[3] See, e.g. http://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/epidemiology/epidemiology-hiv-gay-men-and-other-men-who-have-sex-men

[4] http://blog.catie.ca/2016/10/04/we-need-to-address-the-unique-and-complex-issues-of-indigenous-people-living-with-hiv/

[5] http://www.catie.ca/fact-sheets/epidemiology/injection-drug-use-and-hiv-canada

[6] See, e.g., http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC4704989/

[7] http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/apc.2016.0178; http://www.accho.ca/portals/3/documents/acb_strategy_web_oct2013_en.pdf(In 2009, African, Caribbean, and Black people represented an estimated 19% of people living with HIV in Ontario, with a relative rate of heterosexual HIV acquisition that was 24 times higher than among others infected through heterosexual contact.)

Zimbabwe: Country's laws on deliberate transmission are too broad and should be reviewed

PREGNANT HIV-positive mothers who do not take precaution to prevent transmission of the virus to their unborn babies are liable for prosecution and face up to 20 years in prison under the country’s laws, a lawyer has noted.

Anyone living with the virus who has sexual intercourse with an HIV-negative partner using protection without disclosing their status may also be legally liable, even when transmission has not occurred, Mr Lizwe Jamela of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) said.

In an interview on the sidelines of the just-ended International Conference of Aids and STIs in Africa (Icasa) in Abidjan, Ivory Coast Mr Jamela, who heads ZLHR in Matabeleland and Midlands provinces said the country’s laws on deliberate transmission of HIV were too broad and should be reviewed.

He said the broadness of the laws made almost everyone who is sexually active liable for prosecution, and thus called for the repealing of the legislation.

Under section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act chapter 9:23 deliberate transmission of HIV is a criminal offence which attracts a sentence of not more than 20 years.

“On the face of it the law talks about deliberate transmission of HIV but when you analyse it further you observe that almost everyone can face prosecution,” he said.

Section 79 (b) states that “Any person, realising that there is a real risk or possibility that he or she is infected with HIV; intentionally does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows will infect, which he or she realises involves a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV, shall be guilty of deliberate transmission of HIV, whether or not he or she is married to that other person, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years”.

Mr Jamela said, “Anyone can fall into that category. There is just too much conjecture in that law.

“If a pregnant woman who is HIV-positive fails to undergo the Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT) programme she is liable for prosecution.

“Anyone who is HIV positive who has intercourse with someone who is negative and uses protection can still be prosecuted under this law because that person would have done something which involves a real risk of possibility of infecting another person with HIV.

“The fact that one used protection can only be used as mitigation but not to absolve anyone.”

He added, “So under this law, the criminal offence is not only about deliberate transmission but even exposure to risk of transmission, which in my view is very wide and broad.”

Mr Jamela said the law should either be amended to deal specifically with cases of deliberate transmission or be totally repealed.

“We don’t need a law that criminalises HIV. Instead we should be reinforcing the human rights response to HIV intervention by increasing issues of education and advocacy.

“We could limit the law to genuine cases of deliberate transmission,” he said.

Mr Jamela further argued that it was also humanly impossible to prove in a court of law who would have infected who between complainant and defendant in cases of deliberate transmission of HIV.

“Judiciary can’t deal with who infected who. There is no technology to generate evidence to prove that. So in most cases the person who would report first becomes the complainant. But what if the complainant is the one who infected defendant, how do you prove that?

“For a criminal conviction to happen someone should be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but we have people being convicted of deliberate infection when that threshold has not been passed,” he said.

Head of the HIV and TB unit in the Ministry of Health and Child Care Dr Owen Mugurungi described the enactment of the law as “a moment of madness”.

He said the law was counterproductive in the fight against stigma around HIV.

“It was a moment of madness. This is what happens when decisions are made based on emotions.

“The law attacks the basic rights of people living with HIV. It’s counter-productive to our interventions and defeats everything we are trying to do to fight the virus.

“That law causes people to go underground, it scares away people from getting tested because it stigmatises HIV,” he said.

Dr Mugurungi added that there was engagement between the National Aids Council and legislators to look into possible ways of repealing or amending the law so that it does not criminalise HIV.

Zimbabwe Network of People Living with HIV (ZNPP+) national chairperson Sebastian Chinhaire said the law countered the country’s efforts to end Aids by 2030 and should be done away with immediately.

“We should do away with that law. We will not end Aids by 2030 if we still have that law. All the gains recorded in the fight against HIV are being reversed by this law. It should go,” he said.

Published in Bulawayo 24 on Dec 17, 2017

Canada: Lawyers are asking for current cases and past convictions of non-disclosure to be revisited in light of federal justice department report

Lawyers urge second look at HIV non-disclosure cases, convictions following report

Monday, December 11, 2017 @ 9:25 AM | By Terry Davidson

Lawyers are urging Crown attorneys to re-examine HIV non-disclosure cases past and present following a federal report calling for a curbing of criminal prosecutions in light of evolving science around risk of transmission.

Various Canadian criminal lawyers are saying current cases and past convictions of non-disclosure should be revisited by provincial prosecutors and their attorneys general against the backdrop of the new report, which lays out various scenarios which would involve a low — or even non-existent — possibility of transmission, even if a condom is not used.

The Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV warns of the overcriminalization of infected people who don’t disclose their condition but are on treatment, have a low viral load and pose a “negligible” risk to a non-infected sex partner.

It goes on to classify HIV as “first and foremost a public health issue.”

After the report’s release, Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi and Health Minister Eric Hoskins announced they would tell their Crowns to now limit non-disclosure prosecutions, particularly in cases where the infected person “is on antiretroviral therapy” and “where an individual has a supressed viral load for six months.”

Toronto criminal lawyer Michael Lacy, a partner with Brauti Thorning Zibarras and president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, said the report should give “guidance” to Crown prosecutors.

“From a legal perspective, the report provides guidance that should eliminate criminal prosecution in those cases,” said Lacy. “Non-disclosure alone will not vitiate consent. Non-criminal responses are being recommended for the vast majority of cases involving public health authorities. At the same time, the report recognizes that there will be some, now hopefully limited, circumstances where the blunt instrument of the criminal law will be the appropriate way to respond to deliberately high-risk behaviour.”

Current standards used to prosecute non-disclosure cases need to catch up with evolving science, the report states.

“Sexual activity, regardless of condom use, with an HIV positive person who is taking HIV treatment as prescribed and has maintained a suppressed viral load … poses a negligible risk of transmission,” it reads.

Still, it stresses “criminal law applies to HIV-positive persons where they fail to disclose, or misrepresent, their HIV status prior to sexual activity that poses a realistic possibility of transmission.”

Criminal law, it states, should not apply to non-disclosing infected people as long as they’ve maintained a suppressed viral load of under 200 copies per millilitre of blood, and that “a person living with HIV who takes their treatment as prescribed is acting responsibly.”

Also, the law should not apply to those who are not on treatment but use condoms or to those who engage only in oral sex, “because the realistic possibility of transmission test is likely not met in these circumstances.”

Instances where risk increases, it states, includes “multiple acts of sexual intercourse,” particularly when condoms are not used, and oral sex involving ejaculation with an untreated infected partner.

It also states that “persons from marginalized backgrounds,” such as gay, Indigenous and black people, are disproportionately impacted.

Released Dec. 1, the federal paper could potentially trigger a new legal chapter in this issue.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in R. v. Mabior [2012] SCC 47 that an infected person was not legally required to disclose their HIV-positive status to a sex partner if the former carried a low viral load and used a condom. But the SCC also left room for tweaking should laws need to adapt with scientific findings and shifting risk factors.

This report instructs all Crown attorneys that they need to examine the science underlying their individual prosecutions and decide whether or not it is still in the public interest to prosecute the cases, and whether or not there is still a reasonable prospect of conviction,” said Toronto lawyer Daniel Brown, head of Daniel Brown Law and author of Prosecuting and Defending Sexual Assault Offence Cases: A Practitioner’s Handbook. “Because the science has evolved so quickly and so much … our perceptions of what created a realistic possibility of transmission, even five years ago, has changed to where we’re at today, and we have to re-examine all of the cases in the court system to determine whether or not they still meet that standard.”

Provincial attorneys general should turn their eyes toward past convictions, he said.

“We can see that there was a substantial amount — not just those who were convicted after a trial — but many people who pled guilty perhaps to minimize the type of punishment that could come to them had they proceeded to a trial … and it is uncertain whether or not they pled guilty in the face of evidence that would no longer withstand scrutiny,” said Brown. “Were these cases where there was a realistic possibility of transmission, or were these cases where the law hadn’t caught up with the science?”

Alberta criminal lawyer Markham Silver also talked about revisiting non-disclosure convictions, using as an example the launching of a coroner’s inquiry into years of botched examinations by disgraced child pathologist Charles Smith.

“Realistically, the attorney general or the ministry of justice of any province can engage in reviews as they see fit,” said Silver. “When they had the situation … in Ontario with Smith … the Crown reviewed a whole rack of cases that dealt with his evidence and made determinations based on new information they had obviously received. … So it’s certainly open to the Crown to do as the Crown sees fit … in any particular provinces.”

Vancouver lawyer Troy Anderson, who recently acted in a non-disclosure case, agrees.

“If you’re looking at the science that says it is essentially no risk of HIV transmission if you are being treated and acting responsibly, then yes, I agree with that absolutely,” he said. “The prosecution services vary from province to province … [but] I think it is absolutely going to follow. I think there is will be a drop in the number of people being prosecuted for this.”

Canada: Alberta courts urged to follow Ontario example and stop prosecuting people for not disclosing their HIV status

Alberta should curb prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure

The Ontario government announced Crown attorneys will no longer prosecute certain cases of HIV-positive people who don’t disclose their status to their sexual partner.

By:  Metro Published on Mon Dec 04 2017

Advocates are urging Alberta courts to stop prosecuting HIV-positive people who don’t tell their sexual partners their status, as long as they’ve been on medication for a certain length of time.

The call comes after a federal justice department report released Friday concluded that criminal law should generally not apply to people who are on HIV treatment, are not on treatment but use condoms, or engage only in oral sex.

The Ontario government also announced Friday, which was World AIDS Day, that Crown attorneys will no longer prosecute cases of HIV-positive people who don’t disclose their status to their sexual partner when the HIV-positive person has had a suppressed viral load for six months.

Viral load refers to the amount of HIV virus in a person’s blood.

“It’s a huge step forward,” said Brook Biggin, founder of the Edmonton Men’s Health Collective and regional manager of the Community Based Research Centre for Gay Men’s Health.

“Our hope is that Alberta will make a sensible decision as well, and look at the evidence and follow suit.”

The announcement was made in response to the report, which was titled “Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV” and backed by analysis from the Public Health Agency of Canada.

The report found there is no realistic possibility of a person transmitting HIV if they have been on treatment and have an undetectable viral load.

Biggin said Canada is notorious for being “one of the worst countries” in terms of the number of recorded prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure.

The Canadian HIV Legal Network has recorded more than 200 prosecutions.

Because there is no specific law around non-disclosure in Canada, other laws are used to prosecute cases.

Offenders are often charged with aggravated sexual assault, with the idea being that a failure to disclose the condition invalidated consent, and that HIV could cause significant bodily harm.

Aside from often lengthy jail terms, those convicted have also faced mandatory designation as sex offenders.

“These are charges that ruin people’s lives,” Biggin said.

Veronica Jubinville, press secretary for Alberta Justice Minister Kathleen Ganley, said in an e-mailed statement that the ministry is taking the report into consideration.

“We are evaluating how this potential change could impact our courts and these types of cases in Alberta,” the statement reads.

Published in Metro News on Dec 04, 2017

Canada: Ontario decision to limit HIV criminalisation seen as a step forward but more still needs to be done

HIV-positive community says Ont. ruling is first step of long process

TORONTO — A move by the Ontario government to limit the prosecution of HIV-positive people who don’t disclose their status to sexual partners is being called a step in the right direction by those affected, but they say there’s much more progress to be made.

The government announced on Friday that people with low viral loads who don’t have a realistic chance of transmitting the disease can’t be charged with a crime if they don’t disclose their medical status to a sexual partner.

Previously, non-disclosure could lead to an aggravated sexual assault charge that landed convicted people on a sex offender list.

Ontario made the changes after studies showed that the risk of transmission is negligible if people are being treated for the disease or if appropriate precautions are taken.

Chad Clarke, 46, who served 39 months in prison for non-disclosure, said he cried when the announcement was made and said progress was being made to end what community advocates called the criminalization of HIV.

“I feel great because they’re listening to our voices,” said Clarke. “I look forward to see where we go … they just proved that you have them willing to sit down, and maybe Canada will sign on to this.”

However, advocates in the community say there are downsides to the ruling as well.

Jeff Potts, managing director of the support and advocacy group Canadian Positive People Network, said that decriminalizing only people with low viral loads means the community will be divided between people who are fortunate enough to get the medical treatment they need, and marginalized people who are not.

“At the end of the day, laws that criminalize people living with HIV for any reason, unless it can be proven there was intentional harm, are unjust,” said Potts, who has been HIV-positive for three decades.

“They don’t make sense, they don’t keep up with the science, it does nothing more than perpetuate stigma and further marginalize people who live with HIV.”

Potts said that some people will see this as a wrong step because of that division, but acknowledged that it’s important that the government has shown it understands there’s a conversation that needs to happen.

The government said Sunday it had no comment about any plans to further limit prosecution of HIV-positive people for non-disclosure.

Potts and Clarke spoke of the stigma that came with being HIV-positive and said that the fear of prosecution was “unbearable.”

Clarke, who was originally sentenced to four years in prison, says his daughter still won’t let him speak to his grandson, and said he still isn’t on speaking terms with his parents. He used to feel at home in Toronto’s Church and Wellesley neighbourhood, where there is a strong LGBTQ community, but has since moved to a small rural community because the area brings back too many bad memories

“Knowing that I’m on a national sex registry that puts me on the same category as people that actually harm children or dismember bodies when they do a sexual thing doesn’t make me feel to good,” said Clarke.

While Clarke is also calling for further changes to non-disclosure rules, he said the HIV community has to be mindful of how they carry on the fight and that they must focus on educating Canadians.

“We need to use our voices properly, hold them accountable, and educate,” said Clarke. “If we don’t educate and show them the love of this community, they’re not going to hold that door open for us no more.”

Canada: Canadian organisations issue joint statement on the federal Justice Minister report “Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV.”

AN IMPORTANT, MODEST ADVANCE ON WORLD AIDS DAY Federal and Ontario governments take first steps toward limiting unjust HIV criminalization, but must work with community and experts to go further The following statement is issued jointly by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO), Canadian Positive People Network (CPPN), the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law + HIV Exposure (CLHE), and the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization: December 1, 2017—

Today, after years of advocacy by community organizations, both the federal and Ontario governments have finally recognized the need to limit the “overcriminalization of HIV” in Canada. They have each taken a first step toward that end— specifically, by recognizing that a person living with HIV who has a suppressed viral load should not be criminally prosecuted, because this is at odds with the science. This morning, the federal Justice Minister released her department’s long-anticipated report, “Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV.”

The report contains a number of important conclusions warranting a more limited application of the criminal law than is currently the case. In particular, the report explicitly recognizes that HIV is first and foremost a public health matter, that the use of the blunt instrument of the criminal law should be a matter of last resort, that the application of the criminal law to HIV non-disclosure is likely to disproportionately affect people Indigenous, gay and Black people. The report also recognizes that it is problematic, in at least some circumstances, to use the law of sexual assault to deal with allegations of HIV non-disclosure.

Meanwhile, the Ontario Attorney-General and Minister of Health have released a joint statement confirming that “HIV should be considered with a public health lens, rather than a criminal justice one, wherever possible,” and that in light of the overwhelming scientific consensus for cases where an individual has a suppressed viral load for six months, Ontario’s Crown Prosecutors will no longer be proceeding with criminal prosecutions in such cases.

These are welcome first steps. But what is needed is deeper, broader reform. Earlier this week, the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCRHC) released a joint Community Consensus Statement endorsed by more than 150 organizations across the country, from the HIV sector and beyond. Developed through several months of cross-country consultation, the statement shows clear consensus against the current overly broad use of the criminal law in Canada against people living with HIV and the urgent need for action from federal, provincial and territorial governments.

The Community Consensus Statement declares that, in accordance with international guidance, criminal prosecutions should be limited to cases of actual, intentional transmission of HIV. It also specifically identifies circumstances in which criminal prosecution for alleged HIV non-disclosure is clearly inappropriate. In particular, the Community Consensus Statement declares that HIV related criminal charges are not appropriate where a person living with HIV engaged in activities that, according to the best available scientific evidence, posed no significant risk of transmission, which activities include: § oral sex; § anal or vaginal sex with a condom; and § anal or vaginal sex without a condom while having a low viral load.

It is encouraging, therefore, that Justice Canada’s report recommends that the criminal law should not apply to people who have a suppressed viral load.

Furthermore, Justice Canada recommends that: The criminal law should generally not apply to persons living with HIV who: are on treatment; are not on treatment but use condoms; or, engage only in oral sex (unless other risk factors are present and the person living with HIV is aware of those risks), because the realistic possibility of transmission test is likely not met in these circumstances.

These conclusions need to be reflected in clear prosecutorial directives issued by federal and provincial Attorneys General. However, the announcement today by the Attorney General of Ontario – which province accounts for more than half the prosecutions to date in Canada – falls well short of this, as it only commits to refraining from prosecutions in cases where someone has a suppressed viral load.

These conclusions by Justice Canada should also be recognized by judges across Canada when they are called upon by prosecutors to apply the existing legal framework, under the law of sexual assault as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

However, it remains that case that prosecuting HIV non-disclosure as sexual assault is misguided and damaging, not only to people living with HIV but also to the integrity of the law of sexual assault. We therefore welcome Justice Canada’s conclusion that, in the absence of intent to transmit HIV to a sexual partner, sexual offences are not appropriate.

As declared in the Community Consensus Statement released earlier this week, HIV non-disclosure must be removed from the reach of sexual assault law. We note that the Ontario Attorney General has explicitly echoed the call by the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization to examine potential Criminal Code reform.

Canada: Ontario will no longer prosecute people who don't disclose their HIV status if they have a suppressed viral load

Ontario to curb prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases

Crown attorneys will not prosecute cases of HIV-positive people who do not disclose they have HIV if they have had a “suppressed” viral load, or amount of HIV, in their blood for six months.

The Ontario government announced Friday, World AIDS Day, that Crown attorneys will no longer prosecute cases of HIV-positive people who don’t disclose their status to their sexual partner when the person who is HIV-positive has had a suppressed viral load for six months.

Viral load is the amount of the HIV virus in a person’s blood.

The announcement was a response to the federal justice department’s report titled “Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV,” released Friday.

The report, backed by analysis from the Public Health Agency of Canada, concludes that the criminal law should generally not apply to people who are on HIV treatment (which suppresses their viral load and makes transmission unlikely), are not on treatment, but use condoms, or engage only in oral sex.

“The realistic possibility of a transmission test is likely not met in these circumstances,” the report concludes.

The federal report recognized that HIV “is first and foremost a public health issue,” and concluded that non-disclosure prosecutions disproportionately affect people who are Indigenous, gay and Black.

While the province’s announcement to limit prosecutions was seen as modest progress, a number of organizations quickly pointed out that the government should only be prosecuting cases where there was actual, intentional transmission of HIV.

Ontario has been criticized by advocates as being a world leader in unjustly prosecuting HIV-positive people, typically charging them with aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partner.

Published in the Star on Dec 1, 2017

Canada: Federal Justice Ministry releases its long-anticipated report “Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV

Government releases Report on the Criminality of HIV non-disclosure

News Release

From Department of Justice Canada

December 1, 2017 – Ottawa, ON – Department of Justice Canada

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system protects Canadians, holds offenders to account, provides support to victims, meets the highest standards of equity and fairness, and respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today, on World AIDS Day, the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, released the Department of Justice Canada’s report entitled Criminal Justice System’s Response to the Non-Disclosure of HIV. The report represents a significant step forward in raising awareness and addressing concerns about the over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure in Canada, which can discourage testing and treatment.

The report, developed in collaboration with the Public Health Agency of Canada, reaffirms that HIV is fundamentally a public health issue. It provides a comprehensive review of the most recent medical science on the risks of HIV transmission through sexual activity and shows how the criminal law deals with cases involving the non-disclosure of HIV-positive status prior to sexual activity.

Once a fatal infection, HIV is now considered to be a manageable condition, thanks to significant medical advances in HIV treatment. Sustained treatment substantially improves quality of life and prevents the transmission of HIV.

The report examines stakeholder perspectives, approaches taken in other countries, public health responses to HIV cases, and criminal justice responses to HIV non-disclosure and draws several conclusions from this overview. Together, it informs an evidence-based approach to addressing HIV non-disclosure in the criminal justice system.

The report will provide valuable assistance to the Minister of Justice as she continues to work with her provincial and territorial counterparts on the way forward. Based on its conclusions and observations, she will be reviewing existing charging and prosecution practices leading to the possible development of prosecutorial guidelines for federal prosecutors.

Quotes

“There has been significant progress in the treatment, management and prevention of HIV infection since the first World AIDS Day observed in 1988. I am pleased to release this report today on World AIDS Day. It clearly demonstrates that our criminal justice system must adapt to better reflect this progress as well as current scientific evidence on HIV-AIDS. Our Government is taking action to help reduce the stigmatization of persons living with HIV, including undertaking an evidence-based approach to addressing HIV non-disclosure in the criminal justice system.”

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., Q.C., M.P.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

“This report is critical to reducing HIV-related stigma in Canada. I will continue to work with my colleague, the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, as well as with people living with HIV to reduce the stigma and discrimination they face, which can be barriers to prevention and treatment.”

The Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Health‎

Quick Facts

  • Canada’s efforts to detect and treat HIV have resulted in the majority of persons living with HIV in Canada knowing their status and receiving appropriate treatment.
  • There is no HIV-specific offence in the Criminal Code. However, persons living with HIV who do not disclose their status are often charged with aggravated sexual assault because the non-disclosure is found to invalidate their partner’s consent to engaging in sexual activity in certain circumstances. This is the most serious sexual offence in the Criminal Code.
  • The criminal law applies to persons living with HIV if they fail to disclose, or misrepresent, their HIV status prior to sexual activity that poses a realistic possibility of HIV transmission.
  • As stated in the report, current research shows that sexual activity (with or without a condom) with a person living with HIV who is taking treatment as prescribed and has maintained a suppressed viral load (i.e., under 200 copies of HIV per ml of blood) poses a negligible risk of transmission. Across studies to date, there have been no confirmed cases of sexually transmitted HIV to an HIV-negative partner when the HIV-positive partner was continuously on antiretroviral therapy with sustained viral suppression.

Related Products