US: Department of Justice releases guidance to eliminate or reform HIV criminalisation laws

[Press release from the US Department of Justice]

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RELEASES BEST PRACTICES GUIDE TO REFORM HIV-SPECIFIC CRIMINAL LAWS TO ALIGN WITH SCIENTIFICALLY-SUPPORTED FACTORS

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that it has released a Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV-Specific Criminal Laws to Align with Scientifically-Supported Factors. This guide provides technical assistance regarding state laws that criminalize engaging in certain behaviors without disclosing known HIV-positive status. The guide will assist states to ensure that their policies reflect contemporary understanding of HIV transmission routes and associated benefits of treatment and do not place unnecessary burdens on individuals living with HIV/AIDS.

This guide is in follow-up to the department’s March 15, 2014, article published with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Prevalence and Public Health Implications of State Laws that Criminalize Potential HIV Exposure in the United States, which examined HIV-specific criminal laws. Generally, these laws do not account for scientifically-supported level of risk by type of activities engaged in or risk reduction measures undertaken. As a result, many of these state laws criminalize behaviors that the CDC regards as posing either no risk or negligible risk for HIV transmission even in the absence of risk reduction measures.

“While initially well intentioned, these laws often run counter to current scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission, and may run counter to our best public health practices for prevention and treatment of HIV,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “The department is committed to using all of the tools available to address the stigma that acts as a barrier to effectively addressing this epidemic.”

The department’s efforts to provide guidance on HIV-specific criminal laws are part of its ongoing commitment to implementation of the National HIV/AID Strategy, released in 2010. Today’s guide furthers the expectation from the Office of National AIDS Policy that we tackle misconceptions, stigma and discrimination to break down barriers to care for those people living with HIV in response to the President’s Executive Order last year on the HIV Care Continuum Initiative. For more information on the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, visit the White House website.

[Press release from the Center for HIV Law and Policy]

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) today issued important new guidance to help end the use of state criminal laws to prosecute and penalize people living with HIV for conduct that would be legal if they did not get tested or know their status.  DOJ’s guidance, titled “Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV-Specific Criminal Laws to Align with Scientifically-Supported Factors,” rebuts the unsupported assumptions that triggered the adoption of most state criminal laws targeting HIV; outlines the impact on individuals and public health of the stigma these HIV-specific laws reinforce; and explains the current scientific knowledge and medical developments that compel reform.

“HIV criminalization laws are rooted in profound ignorance about the roots, risks and consequences of HIV transmission. This ignorance reflects and perpetuates stigma associated with an HIV diagnosis, and has no place in law and public policy,” said Catherine Hanssens, Executive Director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP). “Today’s guidance is the first of its kind from a government law enforcement agency, and an important step in addressing that ignorance. The Department of Justice rightly focuses on three essential truths: that HIV is not an easy virus to transmit, that treatment and other risk-reduction methods can reduce that risk to negligible or zero, and that currently available therapies have transformed HIV into a manageable chronic disease.”

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. states have HIV-specific laws that impose criminal sanctions on people who do not disclose their HIV positive status to a sexual partner or who engage in behavior – such as spitting or biting – that poses virtually no risk of transmitting HIV. Regardless of whether HIV transmission occurs, those who are charged are prosecuted as serious felons, often receive lengthy sentences, and in nine states are burdened with mandatory sex offender registration. The classification of HIV exposure and transmission as a serious felony is grossly out of proportion to the actual threat of harm.

“The DOJ guidance carefully outlines the facts that call for modification of sentences associated with HIV transmission or exposure – the impact of current treatment options and the impact on life quality and expectancy. I wish the guidance more explicitly connected the dots by directly calling for an end to felony prosecutions. At the same time, this is the clear context for that information in the guidance,” Hanssens noted.

A number of states also use general criminal charges such as assault or reckless endangerment to prosecute people living with HIV who are sexually active or who are charged following altercations with law enforcement personnel. The DOJ guidance does not directly address these laws, although its underlying rationale is applicable to all forms of state HIV criminal law policy.

“At 43 years old I never imagined how different my life would be because of my arrest and incarceration,” says David Plunkett who was sentenced to 10 years in New York State, which has no HIV specific criminal law, for “assault with a deadly weapon” – his saliva.  “I also never realized the stigma attached to those with HIV and especially those who also have a criminal record. I should have been able to focus on my health and career, not battling a system that incarcerates those who live with a chronic illness, and remains uninformed about the nature and transmission of HIV.”

Stigma associated with HIV is a barrier to testing, treatment, and prevention. Recent studies show that antiretroviral therapy can reduce the already-small per-act risk of transmission by an additional 96%, but approximately 16-20% of the one million Americans living with HIV do not know they have the virus and likely are the primary source of new infections. Those who are newly infected, when the level of HIV virus in their bodies is high, but who are unaware that they are infected, are the most likely to transmit HIV to another partner.

“Today, the risk of transmission of HIV from a patient taking effective medical therapy is close to zero, and the life expectancy of a newly diagnosed patient with HIV is nearly indistinguishable from his uninfected neighbor. But HIV remains with us and will do so as long as those who are infected are not diagnosed and treated,” says Dr. Wendy Armstrong, Program Director for the Infectious Disease Fellowship Training Program at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. “Criminalization laws do nothing to advance individual or public health, but rather enhance stigma, embrace blame, and discourage testing. There are more effective means to combat this epidemic.”

The guidance notes that many HIV-specific criminal laws run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission, and undermine public health goals such as promoting HIV testing and treatment. DOJ recommends that states reform their laws to eliminate HIV-specific criminal penalties, with the exception of sentence enhancement in cases of sexual assault where HIV transmission could occur or in cases in which a person with HIV acts with the intention to transmit HIV and engages in conduct posing a significant risk of transmission.

The DOJ guidance is the product of two directives: one is President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which tasked DOJ with assessing HIV criminal laws and offering technical assistance to states looking to reform their laws; the other is a Congressional Committee Report that accompanied the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill 2014, which called for similar action and an analysis of civil commitment laws used to extend the confinement of registered sex offenders. The DOJ guidance is available at http://hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/us-department-justice-calls-states-eliminate-or-reform-archaic-hiv-criminalization-laws.

Through the Positive Justice Project (PJP), a national coalition of organizations and individuals working to end HIV criminalization in the United States, CHLP is actively working with community advocates and people living with HIV across the country to modernize HIV-related criminal laws.

The Center for HIV Law and Policy is a national legal and policy resource and strategy center working to reduce the impact of HIV on vulnerable and marginalized communities and to secure the human rights of people affected by HIV.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Best Practices Guide

Quebec develops expert consensus on viral load and HIV transmission risk | CATIE – Canada's source for HIV and hepatitis C information

Quebec develops expert consensus on viral load and HIV transmission risk In the past few years, a large body of evidence has emerged supporting the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) as an HIV prevention tool.

US: Iowa Supreme Court rejects ‘theoretical’ HIV risk, reverses ‘HIV exposure’ conviction

Last Friday, June 13, the Iowa Supreme Court set aside the ‘HIV exposure’ conviction of Nick Rhoades, who was initially sentenced to 25 years in prison, with required registration as a sex offender, after having a one-time sexual encounter with another man comprising anal sex with a condom and oral sex without whilst his viral load was undetectable.

In reversing the conviction, the Court recognised that sexual HIV exposure risks should not be based on outdated beliefs or theoretical risks and must be specific to the individual acts and situations that are before the Court.

Read the entire written judgement from the Iowa Court of Appeal

The Court’s ruling sends the case back to Black Hawk County District Court, where prosecutors could have another chance to claim Mr Rhoades actions leading up to his arrest violated the law. However, it is difficult to imagine that prosecutors would be able to establish that there is a factual basis to sustain a conviction in light of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision, and much more likely that a District Court judge will allow his initial guilty plea – which the Court accepted was due to being poorly advised by his initial lawyer – to be withdrawn.

[Update October 1st: Assistant Black Hawk County Attorney Linda Fangman has filed a motion to dismiss the case against Mr Rhoades, meaning his six year ordeal is finally over]

The ruling came two weeks after Iowa’s Governor repealed the draconian HIV-specific law under which Mr Rhoades was convicted, replacing it with an infectious disease law that, amongst other significant improvements, provides a defence of taking “practical means to prevent transmission”, defined as “substantial good faith compliance with a treatment regimen prescribed by the person’s health care provider” and use of “a prophylactic device”.

[See this just published news story in ProPublica and Buzzfeed for more on Mr Rhoades’s case, the new Iowa law, and what else is happening in terms of US HIV criminalisation reform.]

HIV risks must be shown to be more than theoretical

The Iowa Court of Appeal’s decision was celebrated in press releases from Lambda Legal and the Center for HIV Law and Policy and in an editorial by the Des Moines Register. As well as personal victory for Nick (who last week had his GPS monitoring device removed by Senator Matt McCoy, during a moving ceremony at the HIV is not a crime conference in Grinnell, Iowa, following the new law’s retrospective removal of all people convicted of ‘HIV exposure’ in Iowa from the sex offender registry) it may also lead to judges and prosecutors revisiting outdated assumptions about HIV risk in future HIV-related prosecutions in other US states and jurisdictions.

“The importance of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision cannot be overstated,” said Christopher Clark, Counsel for Lambda Legal. “We look forward to making these arguments again and to taking this Court’s clear guidance on the interpretation and application of these types of laws to the many jurisdictions in which HIV criminalization remains a pressing issue.”

In 2010, Mr Rhoades filed a petition in the District Court for post-conviction relief arguing that his attorney did not inform him of the specifics of the law, allowing him to plead guilty to charges that were not supported by the actual events and facts. After his petition was denied Rhoades appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Lambda Legal joined forces with Rhoades’ appellate attorneys, Joseph C. Glazebrook and Dan L. Johnston with Glazebrook & Moe, LLP based in Des Moines, Iowa, and The Center for HIV Law and Policy took the lead with the HIV Law Project in drafting a friend-of-the-court brief on the science of HIV treatment and transmission. The brief supporting Rhoades’ appeal was filed on behalf of The Center for HIV Law and Policy, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), and the HIV Law Project.

In its ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the criminal law required that a defendant “intentionally expose” another person to HIV. The court noted that the fact that HIV primarily is transmitted through sexual intercourse and contact with blood, semen or vaginal fluid is not a legally acceptable substitute for the facts necessary to say that a particular individual acted with the intent to expose someone to HIV in a manner that actually posed a real risk of HIV transmission.

Watch Lambda Legal’s Christopher Clark make his oral arguments before the Court of Appeal

Justice Wiggins, writing for the majority opinion, highlighted the specifics of the HIV risks involved in this case in three different places:

Based on the state of medicine both now and at the time of the plea in 2009, we are unable to take judicial notice that an infected individual can transmit HIV, regardless of an infected individual’s viral load, when that individual engages in protected anal or unprotected oral sex with an uninfected person. (page 3)

Today we are unable to take judicial notice that an infected individual can transmit HIV when an infected person engages in protected anal sex with another person or unprotected oral sex, regardless of the infected person’s viral load. (page 17)

At the time of the plea, Rhoades’s viral count was nondetectable, and there is a question of whether it was medically true a person with a nondetectable viral load could transmit HIV through contact with the person’s blood, semen or vaginal fluid or whether transmission was merely theoretical. The judicial notice we took in previous cases is subject to reasonable dispute here; thus, it is improper for us to similarly take judicial notice in this case. With the advancements in medicine regarding HIV between 2003 and 2008, we are unable to take judicial notice of the fact that HIV may be transmitted through contact with an infected individual’s blood, semen or vaginal fluid, and that sexual intercourse is one of the most common methods of passing the virus to fill in the gaps to find a factual basis for Rhoades’s guilty plea. Thus, there was not a sufficient factual basis for the district court to accept the plea. Therefore, trial counsel was ineffective for allowing the district court to accept the plea without a factual basis. (page 18)

In addition, the Court found that prosecutors must establish something more than that HIV transmission is theoretically plausible. The court rejected prior courts’ treatment of “possible” as meaning any likelihood of occurrence, no matter how remote. “Could” or “possible” in this context should mean, as the Iowa Supreme Court said, “the reality of a thing occurring, rather than a theoretical chance.” It also said that prosecutions must rely on expert testimony about actual transmission likelihood in these cases, and defendants don’t have to show that transmission would never occur in order to successfully defend against charges of HIV exposure.

First, we recognize this statute requires expert medical testimony on the likelihood of transmission of HIV. Experts are not required to testify in absolutes when it comes to causation….Second, and more importantly, we would not want to deprive a person of his or her liberty on the basis the defendant’s actions caused something that can only theoretically occur. (page 8 )

Of note, bearing in mind that only 25 percent of the more than 1 million individuals in the US who are living with HIV are achieving viral suppression, the amicus (friend of the court) brief was careful not rely too much on treatment’s impact on viral load, and rather emphasised the already low per act risk of transmission via various forms of sexual contact, regardless of whether the person was on treatment.

Rhoades v. State of Iowa, Amicus Brief, Supreme Court of Iowa

UK: Court of Appeal upholds man’s conviction for recklessly passing on genital herpes during sex with ex-girlfriend

Today, the Court of Appeal upheld David Golding’s 2011 conviction for ‘recklessly’ infecting his ex-girfriend with genital herpes (HSV-2) during a brief relationship.  However, his original 14 month sentence was reduced to three months (as time served, Mr Golding was released on bail in September 2011 after spending six weeks in prison) because of the exceptional delay in bringing the case to appeal. “Accordingly,” wrote Lord Justice Treacy on behalf of fellow judges Mr Justice Bean and His Honour Judge Lakin, “notwithstanding our view as to the propriety of the initial sentence, we exercise our power to reduce that sentence in the light of what has occurred subsequently.”

The Court found that Mr Golding understood both that he had the infection and how it is transmitted, and by not preventing transmission – or disclosing his condition thereby allowing the complainant to make an informed decision whether or not she wanted to risk acquiring herpes – was guilty of reckless grievous bodily harm under Section 20 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861.

Notably, the Court reaffirmed that in this case herpes was a “really serious bodily harm”, although it noted that in a future contested trial it would be up to a jury to consider whether the herpes infection was, indeed, really serious, on a case-by-case basis.

20. As to the impact of herpes, the evidence was that whilst it was not a life threatening condition, it is incurable. The initial infection is described as an unpleasant and painful acute illness with debilitating effects. On occasion admission to hospital may be required, (not in this case), and most affected people can return to work within a week or so. Episodes may recur throughout life. Generally when they do, they are milder and shorter in impact. Psychological disturbance is common in the immediate aftermath of the initial episode. HSV-2 has a higher recurrence rate than HSV-1.

62. ….The evidence of the painful symptoms, their effect at the time, their recurrence, and the prospect of their recurrence without effective cure for an indefinite period was in our judgment sufficient for a jury to consider that it amounted to really serious bodily harm.

During the Appeal, Mr Golding testified that he had not been given clear information that genital herpes might be transmtted even in the absence of a “flare up”. The Court did not believe Mr Golding, and because there were no medical notes regarding how he had been counselled (despite him testifying that he only received confirmation of his herpes diagnosis over the phone from a GUM receptionist and a general leaflet on STIs at his initial visit) and because both medical experts – Dr Kenneth Mutton (for the Crown) and Professor George Kinghorn (for the defence) –  said that “best practice” would be for a newly diagnosed person to be counselled about “the possibility of infectivity even when a person is asymptomatic” the Court found Mr Golding was, in fact, reckless.

22. The available medical notes were not specific as to advice provided to the appellant. According to Dr Mutton, he would have expected a full discussion to have taken place in April 2008 at the Genito-urinary Clinic following the guideline of the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV. This refers to condom use when lesions are present, the possibility of infectivity even when a person is asymptomatic, and disclosure of the condition to a partner.

23. Professor Kinghorn, in the absence of particular evidence as to the advice given to the appellant, thought that it was less likely that the appellant would have been told that he was infectious when no lesions were present. However, he conceded that since the turn of the century, the state of medical knowledge in this respect available to general practitioners had improved. He also acknowledged that a GP following best practice would have included advice about asymptomatic transfer.

This will have important future implications for the clinician-patient relationship, not only at GUM clinics, but also for GPs. It suggests that courts will assume this “best practice” has taken place – even if it hasn’t – and it will be hard for a future defendant to prove that he or she hadn’t been counselled in this way if there is nothing in their medical notes.

Given the public policy implications of this ruling, there may well be an application to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Unusually, it was the CPS that had initiated this appeal after seeing a report from Dr Mutton, produced after Mr Golding was sentenced (following an initial guilty plea) which raised the issue of whether genital herpes could be described as “really serious bodily harm” so as to come within Section 20. In the latest (unpublished) version of its legal guidance on prosecuting Intentional or Reckless Sexual Transmission of Infection it had suggested that genital herpes could be prosecuted under Section 47 of the OAPA 1961, actual bodily harm.

Mr Golding had been prepared to plead guilty under Section 47 in his original trial, but the judge had made it clear that he would only accept a plea (or a full trial) under Section 20. In effect, however, the Court of Appeal has dodged a bullet by avoiding a clear statement that sexual herpes transmission is always serious bodily harm.

As it stands, the reckless (or intentional) transmission of any sexually transmitted infection (whether or not it is considered to be objectively serious by, for example, BASHH or other medical experts) could be prosecuted in England & Wales and a jury will decide whether the infection is subjectively serious according to the testimony of the complainant and medical experts.

It should be recalled that the original draft of the CPS guidance, published in 2006, covered not only the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of HIV, but also chlamydia; genital herpes; gonorrhoea; hepatitis A, B and C; LGV (lymphogranuloma venereum); non-specific urethritis (NSU), and syphilis.

Back in 2007, in response to the draft, the Government’s Expert Advisory Group on AIDS (EAGA) noted that including so many non-serious STIs was “one of the most disturbing aspects of the document.” It conceded that “broadening the policy to cover other infections may be desirable to avoid stigmatising HIV,” but added that “there is a danger of confusion because of significant differences between the infections listed.” It questioned the CPS’s understanding of the nature of STIs, how they are transmitted and whether they actually cause any serious harm in pragmatic terms.

As an example it used the case of genital herpes, which “is simply a cold sore on the genitals, indeed half of all cases in the UK are thought to be caused by transmission of herpes from the mouth to the partner’s genitals during oral sex. It causes little serious physical harm and most people who contract it are not even psychologically disturbed by it in the longer term. Even given the definition in the document, it seems to defy common sense that this could constitute grievous bodily harm.”

EAGA added that HSV, the virus that causes genital herpes, is often passed from parent to child with a kiss on the cheek. “Why should it be grievous bodily harm to infect a partner with genital herpes through sex, but not when an adult infects a child by kissing their cheek, or another adult by kissing their mouth?”

It stressed that “the CPS needs to take the advice of experts regarding the seriousness of [STIs]. In the vast majority of cases, seeking to prosecute transmission would be an entirely disproportionate response.”

The Herpes Viruses Association (HVA) issued a press release following today’s verdict which stated that “we are appalled at the court’s failure to overturn the guilty verdict. Herpes virus transmission should not be in the legal arena at all.”

HVA charity director Marian Nicholson said: “This charity represents around forty million people in the UK who carry herpes simplex infections. Over half the cases of genital herpes are caused by the common facial cold sore type (HSV-1) usually by oral sex. The implications of the judgment are that any of them could be sent to prison if they transmit this infection to a partner.”

She said: “I am pleased that David Golding has not been sent back to prison – but this ruling is inappropriate. It is not in anyone’s interest to send people to prison for passing on such a common and usually unnoticed condition.”

She continued, “We should take responsibility for our own sexual health and not assume that a partner is infection-free. Many infections are caught from people who don’t know they have them so blaming someone else is pointless.”

 

R v Golding [2014] EWCA Crim 889

Canada: More than 70 scientific experts sign on to consensus statement on HIV transmission risks in the context of criminal law

More than 70 scientific experts Canada-wide have today released a consensus statement confirming when there is a low-to-zero possibility of a person living with HIV transmitting the virus in various situations.

The statement was developed out of a concern that “a poor appreciation of the scientific understanding of HIV and its transmission” is contributing to the overly broad use of criminal charges against people for alleged non-disclosure of HIV status in Canada.

It concludes that “HIV physicians and scientists have a professional and ethical responsibility to assist those in the criminal justice system to understand and interpret the science regarding HIV. This is critical to prevent miscarriage of justice and to remove unnecessary barriers to evidence-based HIV prevention strategies.”

According to a press release issued today

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO), la

Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le VIH/sida (COCQ-SIDA) and the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure applaud this consensus statement. Grounded in a comprehensive review of the most recent and relevant scientific evidence, the statement confirms that current Canadian law is going too far and ignoring the science. We welcome scientific experts speaking out against the many unjust prosecutions against HIV-positive people that we are seeing in Canada, which have too often resulted in draconian sentences for conduct that posed no significant risk of transmitting the virus.

In 2012, we expressed our deep disappointment with the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the cases of R. v. Mabior and R. v. D.C. Under these rulings, people living with HIV can be sent to jail and registered as sexual offenders for life for not disclosing their status even if they have used a condom or had an undetectable or low viral load, had no intent to harm and indeed did not transmit HIV. We characterized these decisions as being unfair, harmful to both individual and public health, and at odds with the science. Since these rulings, we have witnessed trial judges struggling with the difficulties they pose, particularly when this overly broad approach contradicts the scientific evidence.

Today, scientists themselves have detailed their concerns with the continued overuse of some of the most serious charges in the Criminal Code in circumstances in which prosecutions are entirely unjustified. In the consensus statement released today, scientists have sent a strong message to Crown prosecutors and judges calling for restraint.

Indeed, scientists’ assessment of the evidence supports our long-standing call for, at most, an extremely limited use of the criminal law. Among other things, the science supports the position that people who practice safer sex (e.g., by using a condom) or who are under effective antiretroviral therapy should not be prosecuted or convicted for HIV non-disclosure. Prosecuting people in such circumstances runs counter to available scientific evidence showing that the risk of transmission is negligible or even nil. Such misuse of the criminal law does nothing to help curb the HIV epidemic and drives people further away from effective HIV prevention, care, treatment and support services.

We welcome the stand taken today by medical experts and scientists from all across Canada and endorsed by the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada. It is time for the Canadian criminal justice system to take into account what the science tells us about HIV and its transmission; this evidence cannot be legitimately disregarded.

Read the full consensus statement below or download (for free) from Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases & Medical Microbiology at http://www.pulsus.com/cjidmm

Loutfy M et al. Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of criminal law.

Canada: Supreme Court rules that unwanted pregnancy is a similar 'harm' to HIV

Men who sabotage condoms may turn an otherwise consensual act with a woman into sexual assault, and women who lie about using birth control have been left with some uncertainty about whether they, too, could face charges, under a Supreme Court ruling yesterday on deception before sex.

See also Court avoids making HIV prosecutions easier
From http://dailyxtra.com/canada/news/supreme-court-accepts-reasoning-hiv-groups-in-condom-case

The Supreme Court of Canada heeded the warnings of HIV groups in a narrow 4-3 judgment March 7.

The court upheld the conviction of Craig Hutchinson for aggravated sexual assault. Hutchinson poked holes in condoms he used with his girlfriend. He did this without her consent, hoping that she would become pregnant, which she did. There are parallels with HIV -ondisclosure cases, which also involve keeping information from someone before a sexual encounter.

The court had two legal routes available to it to convict. One route would have used the fraud provisions in the Criminal Code. This is essentially the same legal principle used in HIV-nondisclosure cases and requires both a dishonest act and some harm, or risk of harm. The majority of the Supreme Court endorsed this approach today.

The other route could have further crowbarred open HIV-nondisclosure prosecutions. A minority of judges at the Supreme Court would not have required any proof of harm in order to secure a conviction in Hutchinson’s case. This was also the reasoning of the majority of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO) intervened last year to argue that the Court of Appeal’s approach would unfairly extend the criminal law to cases where there was no realistic risk of HIV transmission.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin agreed, saying that the court must act to protect the existing legal test and avoid “replac[ing] the clarity and restraint achieved by [HIV-nondisclosure] decisions with confusion and over-criminalization.”

This will likely seem insufficient for those who believe courts already go too far to criminalize the lives of HIV-positive people. But the court did accept the reasoning of HIV groups that intervened in the case — which it refused to do the last two times HIV nondisclosure was before the Supreme Court.

Cecile Kazatchkine, a lawyer at the Legal Network, says that the court avoided setting a bad precedent.

“This case doesn’t have any implications for people living with HIV,” Kazatchkine says. “There was a danger that it would, but it didn’t.”

“The Legal Network and HALCO have been really diligent; we decided to intervene, and put all of our energy into this case, even though it wasn’t an HIV case, to make sure the court didn’t reach a decision that makes things worse for people living with HIV.”

In December 2012, the Supreme Court released its decision in the HIV non-disclosure case of Mabior. Panned by HIV groups, a unanimous court required HIV positive people to inform their partners about their health status, unless they have both a low viral load and wear a condom.

In Mabior, the Crown asked the court to criminalize non-disclosure, regardless of whether there was any risk of transmission. That approach was rejected by the court at the time, and rejected again in the March 7 decision. Kazatchkine says that the decision will send a message to Crowns to stop trying to equate non-disclosure in all cases with sexual assault.

Kyle Kirkup, a doctoral student at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, agrees.

“I think maybe this shows that Mabior is the high water mark of criminalization and that’s the message that the Supreme Court of Canada is trying to send, that the court is not willing to go further.

“If you adopted a broader definition of consent, the concern was that people with HIV would have to disclose in all kinds of situations where there is not a realistic possibility  of transmission, like oral sex and mutual masturbation.”

Nonetheless, the reaction to today’s decision is a far cry from years past, when HIV groups called for an end to criminal prosecutions altogether.

Kazatchkine admits that the Legal Network was in an awkward position when it argued for the court to uphold its earlier decision — a decision which the Legal Network publicly denounced at the time.

The case nonetheless may prove to be an important one in the development of the law of sexual assault. While Hutchinson may have opened the door to other non-HIV related fraud charges, the facts in the case were so unusual that it’s hard to know how broad the impact of the case will be, says Kirkup.

 

PARTNER study findings of zero transmissions amongst mixed HIV status gay and heterosexual couples where the positive partner has a low viral load has important legal implications

As reported today at the 21st Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, the multinational PARTNER study found zero HIV transmissions from condomless sex within mixed-HIV-status couples when the HIV-positive partner had his or her viral load suppressed below 200 copies/mL.

“It really is up to people themselves to judge if anything they do in life is ‘safe’ or ‘not safe,’” Lundgren stressed in the March 4 press conference. That said, these interim results have implications for legal issues around HIV, and for avoiding unnecessary use of post-exposure prophylaxis: If the HIV-positive partner has a fully suppressed viral load, Lundgren observed, “there is no reasonable legal action you could take against people who aren’t using condoms, and there’s really not a major concern if the condom breaks—and there’s certainly no indication for PEP.”

Uganda: ‘Trial by media’ of nurse accused of exposing a child to HIV via injection sets a ‘dangerous precedent’

The ongoing case of Rosemary Namubiru, the Ugandan nurse accused of exposing a child to HIV during the course of administering an injection, is highlighted in a powerful press release issued yesterday by AIDS Free World.  Fortunately, Ms Namubiru is being supported by several advocacy and human rights organisations as well as by individual HIV advocates in Uganda.

The inflammatory media coverage (an example of which is this horribly invasive TV news story, above) not only increased HIV-related stigma and violated Ms Namubiru’s right to a fair trial, but is also being used to help justify the passing of the draft HIV Prevention and AIDS Control Bill 2010 which includes a number of problematic provisions including mandatory HIV tests for pregnant women and their partners, and forced disclosure of HIV status to a newly diagnosed person’s partner by a medical practitioner. In addition, the Bill contains two overly broad and problematic HIV-specific criminal statutes.

In late 2009, a group of more than 50 Ugandan and international organisations and individuals released a report criticising many of the provisions of an earlier draft. That early advocacy resulted in the removal of a criminal penalty for the transmission of HIV from mother to child through breastfeeding.

Advocacy co-ordinated by the Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET), continues to argue that the unfavourable clauses must be completely removed and that Uganda must assent to the East African Community (EAC) HIV & AIDS Prevention and Management Act which contains provisions meant to supersede Ugandan law.

Read the entire press release below and download the PDF version here.

HIV-Positive Nurse Tried by Media

––Uganda’s first court case dealing with criminalization of HIV transmission could have far-reaching consequences––

February 11, 2014 (Kampala, Uganda)––Rosemary Namubiru, a Ugandan nurse, stands accused of exposing a child to HIV during the course of administering an injection. The incident incited a media firestorm, leading to Namubiru’s arrest and trumped-up charges of attempted murder. That these were baseless charges was confirmed at the opening of the trial today when the charge was changed to criminal negligence; charges that could still carry up to seven years in prison. As the trial begins, it is clear that the damage has already been done. Namubiru was tried and convicted in the public eye by the media, violating her rights and presumption of innocence.

The implications of this case are far-reaching: the Namubiru case appears to be the first in Uganda’s courts dealing directly with HIV exposure and transmission. Efforts to criminalize HIV transmission, and the failure of both the media and the prosecutors office to act responsibly, set a dangerous precedent and could have grave consequences for the fundamental rights of people living with HIV and AIDS in Uganda and beyond.

Case Summary

Rosemary Namubiru, 64, a nurse with 35 years of experience, was working at the Victoria Medical Centre in Kampala, Uganda. On January 7, 2014, Namubiru was attempting to give an injection to an ill 2-year-old patient. Neither she nor the mother could calm the distraught child. With the child writhing and kicking, the needle accidentally pricked Namubiru’s finger; she stopped what she was doing, washed and bandaged her pricked finger, and returned to the child. She was eventually able to administer the injection.

Uncertain about whether the same needle was used throughout, the mother became concerned about the possibility that her child had been exposed to HIV. It was confirmed that Namubiru is HIV-positive and is on anti-retroviral drugs. The child was given an HIV test; the results were negative. A precautionary 2-month post-exposure prophylaxis regimen was initiated, after which the child will be re-tested.

Rosemary Namubiru was arrested in front of a bevy of journalists. She was held by the Criminal Investigations Department for four days before her first appearance in court. She was charged with attempted murder, which carries a sentence of up to life imprisonment, and remanded to Luzira National Prison to await trial. On February 7, 2014, she was denied bail and returned to prison to await trial.  Minutes before the trail began on February 11, 2014, the prosecutor announced the charge would be changed to “negligent act likely to spread infection of disease.”  With this new charge in place, the prosecutor began to call its witnesses, and the trial is ongoing.

Trial by media

Since the moment of her arrest, Rosemary Namubiru has been found guilty in the court of public opinion. Even though research has shown that the likelihood of HIV transmission from a needle puncture is miniscule––only 0.32% of those exposed to HIV through a subcutaneous puncture became infected––Namubiru has been singled out and vilified in the press because of her HIV-positive status.

Here are just a few of the libelous accusations that appeared in the media reports in the immediate aftermath of her arrest:

* An article with the headline “Killer nurse charged with attempted murder” went on to accuse Namubiru of “maliciously infecting her patients, mainly the children with her HIV positive blood.”

* Another claimed that she “drew her own HIV-infected blood and injected it into a two-year old child.”

* Shortly after Namubiru’s arrest, one article stated that police were “investigating allegations that the woman has been engaging in the act for a pretty long time.”

* An article that appeared in The Africa Report speculated about Namubiru’s mental state, calling her “the fiendish nurse” and claiming “the baby’s incessant cries drove her mad.”

* One journalist opined that “as police struggled to find an appropriate charge to punish such an evil act, it became clearer that our laws are inadequate to cover such emerging but deadly crimes.”

* An editorial about the case declared, “The majority of our doctors and nurses may well be great professionals, but it’s also true that among them are many people who do not harbour good intentions for one reason or another. These could be inherently evil-minded, bitter or mentally unstable.”

False and sensational accounts by irresponsible media can prejudice the outcomes of trials and violate the fundamental human rights of people living with HIV and AIDS. Section 28 of Uganda’s constitution guarantees that every person charged with a criminal offence shall “be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.”

A miscarriage of justice

Even before the trial began, serious questions surfaced regarding Rosemary Namubiru’s ability to receive a fair hearing. From the spectacle of her arrest—recorded by media who were clearly alerted in advance–-to the baseless original charge of attempted murder, and the rush to trial before the defense could prepare, it is clear that this is a sensationalized case.

Throughout the process, there have been numerous violations of Rosemary Namubiru’s rights:

* According to Section 23(4)(b) of the Ugandan constitution, an accused person can only be held for up to 48 hours before a hearing. Namubiru was held for four days before her first court appearance.

* The prosecution argued against granting bail, stating that Namubiru poses a grave risk to the public, even though there is no evidence of intent to commit any crime.

* Namubiru had no lawyer present when police extracted a statement from her; she was unable to access legal counsel until she had been in detention for a week.

* The Prosecutor claimed on February 7, 2014 that the State had completed its investigation and was ready to proceed to trial. Namubiru’s lawyers had not yet seen the State’s evidence, and were informed that they would receive the file the day before the trial was slated to begin. Section 28 of Uganda’s constitution guarantees that every person charged with a criminal offence shall “be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his or her defence.”

What are the broader implications of this case?

HIV advocates fear that the Namubiru case could set a dangerous precedent, in terms of both the criminalization of HIV transmission and the treatment of people living with HIV and AIDS.

Many advocates worry that the case could be used to justify passing the proposed HIV Prevention and AIDS Control Bill 2010. The bill includes two overly-broad sections on the criminalization of HIV, as well as a number of other troubling provisions that would restrict the rights of persons living with HIV and AIDS. If the government moves to legislate the criminalization of HIV, specific groups—including pregnant women, who are easily identified within the chain of transmission—could be targeted for criminal charges. (For more on the proposed bill and its implications, please visit www.uganet.org).

AIDS-Free World unequivocally disagrees with the notion of having a separate criminal code for people who are HIV-positive. If a person attempts to do bodily harm to another, regardless of the means, the existing laws should apply. By creating laws that specifically criminalize HIV transmission, the courts place the emphasis on the person, rather than the crime.

The media frenzy created by this case illustrates the degree to which HIV stigma still exists. Many advocates warn that the introduction of HIV-specific laws would be a dramatic setback in efforts to eliminate discrimination, particularly in the workplace.

Expert global guidance on the criminalization of HIV transmission

In its landmark report, the Global Commission on HIV and the Law recommended that:

“To ensure an effective, sustainable response to HIV that is consistent with human rights obligations:

2.1. Countries must not enact laws that explicitly criminalise HIV…exposure. Where such laws exist, they are counterproductive and must be repealed.

2.2. Law enforcement authorities must not prosecute people in cases of HIV…exposure where no intentional or malicious HIV transmission has been proven to take place.

2.4. Countries may legitimately prosecute HIV transmission that was both actual and intentional, using general criminal law, but such prosecutions should be pursued with care and require a high standard of evidence and proof.

—–

Rosemary Namubiru is being supported by several advocacy and human rights organizations, including the International Community of Women Living with HIV, Eastern Africa (ICWEA), Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET), The National Forum of People Living with HIV in Uganda and AIDS-Free World (NAFOPHANU), and by individual HIV advocates including Canon Gideon Byamugisha, Milly Katana, Major Rubaramira Ruranga.