Austria: AIDS 2010 delegates warned about criminal HIV exposure laws; law clarified but not binding

The organisers of the International AIDS Conference, due to be held in Vienna from next Sunday (18th July), have today provided an important update on Austria’s criminal HIV exposure and transmission laws.

They recommend that anyone who is aware they are living with HIV practice safer sex and safer injecting practises whilst in Austria to minimise the legal risks.

Although the Austrian Ministry of Justice has issued various opinions clarifying the law on HIV exposure and transmission – including recognising that sex with a condom or unprotected sex with an undetectable viral load is not a criminal offence – and that this is a “firm directive to the courts, it should be noted that it does not actually change the law and is not necessarily binding on the courts. As such, conference delegates are advised to always adopt safer sex practices to protect their health, minimize the risk of transmission and the associated legal risks.”

Full statement below.


Statement on Austrian Laws Impacting People Living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV)
from AIDS 2010, GNP+ and ICW

Local and international organizers for the XVIII International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010) look forward to welcoming delegates to Vienna this month.

As delegates plan their stay in Vienna, this short statement provides an overview of some Austrian laws that impact on people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV). The organizers of AIDS 2010 recommend that conference delegates read this statement to understand their legal position with respect to these areas of law.

There are two key points in this statement:

  • Intentional and negligent acts capable of transmission of HIV are criminal offences in Austria
  • Legal risks can be minimized through safer sex and safer injecting practices

Intentional and negligent acts capable of transmission of HIV are criminal offences in Austria

The Austrian Penal Code provides that it is a criminal offence to commit an act which is capable of causing the danger of spreading an infectious disease. Under the law, the disease must be reportable or notifiable. HIV is considered such an infectious disease, along with Hepatitis C, tuberculosis and gonorrhoea. An ‘act’ capable of causing danger includes sexual activity such as vaginal or anal intercourse, oral intercourse or heavy kissing where there is biting or open wounds. An ‘act’ could also include the sharing of injecting equipment.

If the act is carried out with the intent of spreading the disease then the penalty is a maximum three years imprisonment or a financial penalty. If it is an act of negligence, then the penalty is a maximum of one-year imprisonment or a financial penalty.

Under Austrian law, the following factors are irrelevant in establishing a criminal offence:

  • Whether the disease was actually transmitted. The key point is whether the act caused danger. This can be a real danger or an abstract (hypothetical) danger.
  • Whether the person carrying out the act thought, ‘without good cause’ (negligently), that the other person already carried the disease. [Note that if person who carried out the act thought ‘with good cause’ (not negligently) the other person was already infected, then the act is not a criminal offence.]
  • Whether the other person consented to the act.
  • Whether the person who carried out the act disclosed his/her disease, although this may reduce the severity of the penalty.

The Global Criminalisation Scan prepared by GNP+ shows that there have been at least 40 prosecutions in Austria resulting in at least 30 convictions. [Note that GNP+ has noted the lack of reliable data as a problem.]

It is important to note that a broad range of organisations now agree that laws that criminalise HIV transmission violate human rights and undermine public health interventions, including HIV prevention initiatives.

Legal risks can be minimized through safer sex and safer injecting practices

There have been a number of developments in Austrian case law that provide greater legal clarity on how PLHIV can minimize their legal risks in relation to the transmission of HIV. This legal information has been kindly provided by Dr Helmut Graupner, an Attorney at Law specializing in sexuality and the law in Austria.

In the lead up to AIDS 2010, the Ministry of Justice has issued an opinion clarifying the law on HIV transmissions. Whilst this opinion is a firm directive to the courts, it should be noted that it does not actually change the law and is not necessarily binding on the courts. As such, conference delegates are advised to always adopt safer sex practices to protect their health, minimize the risk of transmission and the associated legal risks.

For a person living with HIV, sexual intercourse with a condom does not constitute a criminal offence. The Supreme Court of Austria has issued a decision that sexual intercourse with a condom for a PLHIV does not constitute a criminal offence. Please note that the case law on sexual intercourse with a condom only concerns vaginal intercourse and not anal intercourse, however, the opinion of the Ministry of Justice provides that this applies to anal intercourse too.

Oral intercourse (PLHIV giving) without a condom does not constitute a criminal offence. Austrian courts have found that oral intercourse from a PLHIV to another person without a condom does not constitute a criminal offence. However, there is no case law concerning oral intercourse from an HIV-negative person to a PLHIV, so the legal position in this case remains unclear. Such intercourse should not constitute a criminal offence if safer sex practices are observed and no ejaculation into the mouth takes place. However, an HIV positive person ejaculating into the mouth of someone who is HIV negative may constitute a criminal offence. [An element of HIV transmission law in Austria is ‘abstract’ risk or hypothetical risk. Whilst there have been no cases concerning oral intercourse from an HIV-negative person to a PLHIV, due to the abstract risk element of the law, we have been advised to include this advice in the statement.]

If a PLHIV has an undetectable viral load, unprotected sexual intercourse does not constitute a criminal offence. The Ministry of Justice has provided a firm opinion that if the PLHIV has an undetectable viral load and is consistently following an effective ART regimen then sexual intercourse without a condom does not constitute a criminal offence, given that such persons are not infectious. Please note that the opinion is not binding on the courts. As such, delegates are advised to adopt safer sex practices even if they have an undetectable viral load.

The AIDS 2010 organisers recommend that all conference participants practice safer sex and safer injecting practices to protect their health, minimize the risk of transmission and the associated legal risks.

There are no restrictions in Austria for PLHIV in accessing public spaces
The Vienna public transportation system (Wiener Linien) has no regulations denying PLHIV the right to use the system and there has never been a reported incident of denied service to a PLHIV. Further, regulations denying entry to those with contagious diseases to public swimming facilities in Vienna were removed recently.

Conference organizers are grateful to representatives of the Austrian Government, the City of Vienna and the Austrian Parliament for their efforts to work with us to clarify Austrian laws impacting PLHIV. We are also grateful to them for all the other support given to the conference to make it a success.

UK: Developing guidance for HIV prosecutions: an example of harm reduction?

I’m including an excerpt here – the conclusion, actually – of an excellent article by Yusef Azad of the National AIDS Trust, in the July issue of the HIV/AIDS Policy and Law Review, published by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, which describes the way the HIV sector managed to successfully intervene and manage the harm of criminal prosecutions in England & Wales for ‘reckless’ HIV transmission following an initial period of shock and panic.

By persuading the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consult with the community on the production of a policy statement, as well as legal guidance for prosecutors and caseworkers in this area of law, he argues that this was pragmatic ‘harm reduction’. Certainly, the process has resulted in a much higher burden of proof of transmission and guilt, and there have been no successful prosecutions since an African migrant living in Bournemouth pleaded guilty in January 2007.

Since then, three cases have been dismissed by a judge in pretrial hearings, including two gay cases (in Preston in April 2007 and Cardiff in May 2008) and one heterosexual case (in Manchester in October 2007). These prosecutions all failed because the men had the same informed solicitor who successfully argued that the CPS failed to provide uneqivocal proof that the defendant, and only the defendant, could have, in fact, infected the complainant(s). Although the CPS guidance was only published in March 2008, even the existence of draft versions was enough to persuade the judge in the earlier two cases.

The full article, ‘Developing guidance for HIV prosecutions: an example of harm reduction?’, can be found here.

Judging success depends a lot on one’s initial expectations. The CPS were not in a position to end prosecutions for reckless transmission or disagree with the interpretation of the OAPA 1861 as set out by the Court of Appeal.

What they could do — and what they did do — was consider in greater depth, and on the basis of detailed evidence, what is required to prove responsibility for infection, knowledge, recklessness and appropriate use of safeguards. An informed understanding of these elements has, even in the context of current criminal law, resulted in fewer and fairer prosecutions.

As the CPS says in its Policy Statement, “[O]btaining sufficient evidence to prove the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection will be difficult … accordingly it is unlikely that there will be many prosecutions.” Therefore, we should consider this to be a successful example of policy intervention as harm reduction.

It was not without its risks. Success was due to a number of factors, not least of which was a CPS that was already committed to taking seriously the concerns and experiences of affected communities when considering prosecutions in socially sensitive areas of law.

Some jurisdictions will not have such an enlightened prosecution service, and so the HIV sector will need to start further back in terms of engaging with the authorities. But it may be possible, even given the different legal contexts of different countries, to use the CPS Guidance to help bring about improvements in practice elsewhere.

The process was helped immensely by the commitment from an extraordinarily wide range of partners within the HIV sector, encompassing NGOs, academics, clinicians, virologists and, above all, people living with HIV.

Although harm may be reduced, it has not been ended — prosecutions for reckless HIV transmission remain and will continue. There is an urgent need to restate the ethical and policy case against such prosecutions and to consider freshly how and when we might engage with political decisionmakers on this issue.

UNAIDS says criminal prosecutions do more harm than good

This week UNAIDS has released a fantastic new policy paper firmly establishing that criminal prosecutions for HIV exposure or transmission – whether through sex, drug use or mother to child transmission – do far more harm than good.

The paper coincides with the the XVII International AIDS Conference in Mexico City, where this issue is high on the agenda. There’ll be more from the conference soon, but for now, this policy paper is an extremely important addition to the anti-criminalisation armamentarium.

In some countries, criminal law is being applied to those who transmit or expose others to HIV infection. There are no data indicating that the broad application of criminal law to HIV transmission will achieve either criminal justice or prevent HIV transmission. Rather, such application risks undermining public health and human rights. Because of these concerns, UNAIDS urges governments to limit criminalization to cases of intentional transmission i.e. where a person knows his or her HIV positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and does in fact transmit it. In other instances, the application of criminal law should be rejected by legislators, prosecutors and judges….

 

Download the entire paper (8 pages) here.

UK: Long-awaited guidelines for prosecuting criminal HIV transmission published

It has taken a year longer than anticipated, but the Crown Prosecution Service for England & Wales has finally published their policy on prosecuting criminal HIV transmission.

Thankfully, the document bears almost no relation to the draft version originally published in September 2006, following consultation with HIV experts and advocates.

Naturally, then, a (right wing) think-tank quoted in the (right wing) Daily Mail believes the CPS is being too lenient.

Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, warned that the new rules would encourage risky behaviour among those with HIV.

“Someone who has sex in those circumstances is subjecting the other person to a potentially deadly illness and to suffering over a long period of time,” he added.

“These rules are too lenient, and they will lead people to think they will not be prosecuted.”

On the other hand, my story for aidsmap.com, includes criticism from academic and practicing lawyers who think the guidance is wishy-washy (HIV is never mentioned by name), vague (condoms are never mentioned by name) and fails to elucidate any further on the real question we all really, really want to know: under what circumstances is someone likely to be prosecuted for reckless HIV transmission?

The Daily Mail story, and my aidsmap story, are below (for balance).

Interestingly, the Daily Mail changed its story (the original is now gone forever, sadly) within hours of its publications from being quite surprisingly balanced, to one that seems to wish the CPS guidelines had changed the law and made all unprotected sex by HIV-positive people a criminal act. I should also warn that if you click on the link to the Daily Mail website, you will see one of the most offensive (and laughably reactionary) comments I’ve ever read.

HIV carriers could escape jail for passing on infections to others
By STEVE DOUGHTY
Last updated at 10:47am on 15th March 2008

Anyone deliberately infecting a sexual partner with HIV through a one-off encounter should not be charged with a crime, prosecutors ruled yesterday.

A single sexual incident will not count as evidence that they have deliberately tried to infect their partner with the virus, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

Cases of intentional or reckless transmission of sexual infection will only be brought against those who have infected a series of partners, or have infected one partner during a period of regular risky sex.

The rules were set out to clarify the law on reckless infection and to guide prosecutors on how to deal with a crime that can lead to a life sentence for those convicted.

They also said that those accused of reckless HIV infection are themselves “victims”, because they suffer from a devastating condition.

Eleven defendants have been taken to court in England for transmission of the Aids virus.

Ten of the cases ended in a conviction. Defendants are charged with causing grievous bodily harm under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.

The first person to be jailed for infecting partners was given eight years in 2003 for infecting two women.

The sentence on Mohammed Dica, a married father-of-three, was cut to four and a half years after a re-trial found that he had deliberately infected only one woman.

The guidance, set out in a CPS policy document, said it would be necessary to prove a “sustained course of conduct” in order to find a defendant guilty – in other words a single sexual encounter does not amount to a crime.

“It will be highly unlikely that the prosecution will be able to demonstrate the required degree of recklessness in factual circumstances other than a sustained course of conduct during which the defendant ignores current scientific advice regarding the need for and the use of safeguards, thereby increasing the risk of infection to an unacceptable level,” it said.

The document also said: “We appreciate too that those who are defendants in these cases may be seen as victims themselves, as they also have the infection that they are alleged to have transmitted to another person.”

The statement set out a series of other reasons for prosecutors to be cautious before bringing charges.

Those newly told that they have an infection could be in a state of shock or might not have fully understood the diagnosis.

Prosecutors were told that someone who spread a sexual infection could also have a defence to a charge if the victim knew of their infected status.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said: “Although these types of cases are rare, we are publishing this statement because we recognise the importance of consistent decision-making. We hope that it provides clarity.”

Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, warned that the new rules would encourage risky behaviour among those with HIV.

“Someone who has sex in those circumstances is subjecting the other person to a potentially deadly illness and to suffering over a long period of time,” he added.

“These rules are too lenient, and they will lead people to think they will not be prosecuted.”

Guidelines on prosecuting criminal HIV transmission for England & Wales finally published
Edwin J. Bernard, Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Last Friday, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for England and Wales published its long-awaited policy statement and legal guidance for prosecutors for cases involving the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of serious infection.

Although the policy statement (which can be read here) and legal guidance (which can be read here) have generally been welcomed by the two major HIV policy organisations, because they clarify some of the uncertainties that have surrounded prosecutions for reckless HIV transmission, some legal experts say the documents are vague – for example, neither HIV nor condoms are specifically mentioned – and leave important questions unanswered.

The CPS issued the first draft of its policy statement in September 2006. Following widespread criticism of both the policy and CPS’ lack of understanding regarding issues of harm, transmission and the relationship between scientific evidence and causation, the policy went back to the drawing board, missing its original February 2007 deadline.

“We have consulted widely on the development of this policy statement and have benefited substantially from listening to the views and concerns of others,” the latest CPS policy statement notes. “We have greatly appreciated their input; however, the content of this policy statement is the responsibility of the CPS alone.”

“We are publishing this statement because we recognise the importance of, and the need for, consistent decision-making,” it continues. “We also recognise the potential tension between public health and criminal justice considerations. However, the criminal law exists in part to protect those who are the victims of unlawful conduct by others, including through the unlawful transmission of sexual infection.”

Of note, the guidance does not specifically mention HIV, although all thirteen prosecutions that have taken place in England & Wales since 2003 have been for reckless HIV transmission.

What is clarified?
Two national HIV policy organisations, Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) and the National AIDS Trust (NAT) have already published documents providing initial, brief explanations of how the CPS policy may apply to reckless and intentional HIV transmission. (The THT document can be downloaded here, and the NAT document can be downloaded here.)

In short, the policy clarifies that:

  • Prosecutions are likely to talk place within relationships, and not as a result of one-off sexual encounters. “It will be highly unlikely that the prosecution will be able to demonstrate the required degree of recklessness in factual circumstances other than a sustained course of conduct during which the defendant ignores current scientific advice regarding the need for and the use of safeguards,” it says in the legal guidance for prosecutors.
  • Scientific evidence must be used to show that the defendant infected the complainant, but that this evidence alone cannot conclusively prove the responsibility of the defendant for the complainant’s infection. “The prosecutor will need to be satisfied that the complainant did not receive the infection from a third party or that the complainant did not infect the defendant,” it says in the legal guidance for prosecutors. “This means that the prosecutor will need to know about any possibility which is compatible with the scientific evidence that the complainant was infected by a third party. This means enquiries will have to be made about the relevant sexual behaviour and relevant sexual history of the complainant.
  • The defendant has to have known they were infected when transmission took place to be convicted, although there are some other, very limited circumstances (termed ‘wilful blindness’ e.g. where someone has refused to test despite explicit clinical advice to do so because of symptoms) that could result in prosecution and conviction.
  • In order to be convicted, the CPS must prove that that the defendant understood that they were infectious to other people as well as understood how the particular infection is transmitted.
  • Informed consent of the complainant to the risk of HIV infection is a defence against a charge of reckless HIV transmission. Disclosure is one way of informing the complainant, but the CPS will allow for other possible ways in which the complainant might have been ‘informed’ of the defendant’s HIV status – whether from a third party, or a hospital visit, or from obvious symptoms of infection.
  • Consistent condom use is a defence against a charge of reckless HIV transmission. However, the word ‘safeguards’ is used, rather than condoms, because it appears that the CPS is trying to cover a wide range of differently transmissible conditions.
  • Transmission must take place for a recklessness charge. There is no crime of ‘attempted reckless transmission’. THT says it has “seen a number of cases where local CPS officers have tried to bring non-existent charges, mainly of ‘attempted recklessness’, which is clearly nonsense. All such cases have foundered upon reaching court. It is very helpful that the CPS have stated clearly that this is not appropriate. However, it is possible to bring a charge of attempted intentional transmission, and there is no defence of consent available in charges of intent. To date, nobody has been successfully prosecuted for intentional transmission.”

Positive responses
The CPS policy document says in its conclusion that, “cases involving the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection may raise very difficult and highly sensitive issues. We recognise that obtaining sufficient evidence to prove the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection will be difficult and that accordingly it is unlikely that there will be many prosecutions.”

Both THT and NAT – who along with the African HIV Policy Network, the British HIV Association, Positively Women and the (now defunct) UKC – were consulted on the policy document, cautiously welcome its publication.

“For years now we have seen huge variations in how justice has been administered in this area of the law. This has caused problems for police, courts and people caught up in prosecutions.” said THT’s Head of Policy, Lisa Power. “The new CPS guidance will go a long way towards removing confusion, cutting the most inappropriate investigations short and clarifying where people with HIV and other STIs stand if they transmit them.”

NAT’s Chief Executive, Deborah Jack, notes that, “this new guidance from the CPS is helpful in clarifying the prosecution process. The level of evidence needed to prove intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection has rightly been set very high and it is unlikely that there will be many prosecutions. However whilst prosecutions continue the National AIDS Trust will work to ensure the best possible advice is available to prosecutors, lawyers, police, support organisations, healthcare workers and people living with HIV.”

‘Disappointing’ and vague
However, academic lawyer, James Chalmers, Senior Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh School of Law, says that, “it’s disappointing that the CPS are too coy to use the word ‘condom’ in the document… In terms of intelligible public guidance it leaves a lot to be desired.”

He also criticises the document for leaving the most important question unanswered. “Aside from acknowledging the importance of scientific evidence, I don’t think the document takes us much further forward,” he tells aidsmap.com. When you strip out the guidance as to what the law is, you’re not left with very much of a guide as to when the law will be used. The difficult question was always ‘when will the CPS consider it in the public interest to prosecute?’ and that question is left unanswered.”

And defence lawyer, Khurram Arif, of London solicitors, Hodge Jones & Allen, who has successully defended three clients against reckless HIV transmission charges, notes that, although “it is encouraging to see that the guidelines actually specify that scientific and medical evidence should be gathered as part of the investigation,
I think the CPS will always get stuck on the point of causation.”

In addition, both THT and NAT admit they are disappointed with various parts of the guidance. “The CPS are less clear about condom breakage during sex. THT believes it should be an adequate defence, if a condom is found to have broken during sex and HIV transmission occurs as a result, for the defendant to have promptly advised their partner to get PEP. We will be pressing for further clarity on this.”

Yusef Azad, NAT’s Director of Policy and Campaigns, also tells aidsmap that he is disappointed that “there is no definition of what constitutes reckless behaviour in relation to HIV transmission. In some ways this could be a good thing [because] at least we don’t have an incorrect or unhelpful definition. But the CPS leave it instead to individual clinicians to advise in each case with a worrying possibility of inconsistent approaches and clinicians simply rehearsing their own ethical opinions rather than providing obejective expert advice.”

Finally, it should be noted that the CPS only become involved once a case has been investigated by the police, and that so far there is no guidance for the police in this area. Khurram Arif points out that in his experience, “I have not come across many [police] officers who are familiar with any CPS guidelines.”

However, both NAT and THT plan to work with the Association of Chief Police Officers to help create a more unified – and better-understood – criminal justice system policy now that the CPS guidance has been published.