Police, Prosecutors, Press Bungle HIV Crime

posted: 01/09/2010

Despite new police HIV crime investigation guidelines, HIV prosecution guidelines and new press HIV reporting guidelines, it appears that all were ignored and left on office shelves in the latest prosecution for reckless HIV transmission.
 

A man accused of passing on HIV to a woman of 19 was jailed for a year, and given a five year sexual offences prevention order yesterday.

Nicholas Richards, who is 31, and lived in Sittingbourne, Kent, admitted Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) for the HIV offence of reckless HIV transmission at a previous hearing at Maidstone Crown Court.
 

Richards was also given a five-year sexual offences prevention order, which stops him from having unprotected sex or not telling his partners about his HIV.
 

He was jailed yesterday for a year on that charge and was sentenced to a further year for an unrelated GBH charge, for attacking a man in Medway, Kent.  

The court heard Richards exposed the 19-year-old woman to HIV in June 2008. The young woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, found out she had HIV during routine blood tests when she became pregnant. Her baby does not have HIV, say the police.
 

Police comments
After the hearing, Det. Ch. Insp. Simon Wilson said the crimes committed by Richards were "abhorrent and callous" and had far-reaching consequences. He said: "Not only did he knowingly infect a young girl with HIV - a disease she will have to live with for the rest of her life, but he also selfishly put her child at risk too. Thankfully, the sheer bravery the victim showed in coming forward immediately and giving evidence in court helped us secure a conviction against him and I would pay tribute to her courage." He urged anyone else who had "fallen prey" to Richards to contact the police.
 

George House Trust comment

 
More Police, Crown Prosecution Service and Press failings

Because HIV crimes are complex to investigate and prove beyond reasonable doubt, and because of the harm HIV stigma and discrimination cause, police and prosecutors have strict guidance and policies to follow in HIV cases. This case seems to prove that these were ignored. The investigation and prosecution system cannot be relied on to work properly in all HIV cases.

Police

It appears that the Police ignored their own HIV investigation guidelines. They have clearly ignored their own Communication Strategy guidance, because Det. Ch. Insp. Simon Wilson should never have made his inaccurate and sensationalising comments and blatantly fished for other people to come forward who may have ‘fallen prey’ (his words) to the man.
 

Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service appear to have yet again ignored their own HIV prosecution policy and guidance. Prosecutor Roy Brown seems to have been the man responsible. Guilty pleas should not be accepted without rigorous efforts to obtain transmission evidence.There is no evidence from the media reports that phylogenetic analysis was carried out as the prosecution guidelines require. So we can't be sure the man found guilty did pass HIV to the young woman.

Press

It was only the middle of August, just a few weeks ago, that the managing editor of The Sun told us about his paper’s commitment to responsible reporting of HIV at the launch of NAT’s new press guidelines. Graham Dudman, Managing Editor at The Sun, we were told, ensures his staff use the guidelines. He says: “At The Sun we pride ourselves on getting the facts right and staying up to date. This can be a challenge in sensitive areas like HIV. NAT's guidelines for journalists are very useful, really simple to work with and lay out all the facts reporters need.”
 

He seems to have forgotten the press guidelines for HIV very, very quickly. The Sun’s headline for this HIV news story: ‘HIV fiend jailed for infecting girlfriend’
 

News reports

BBC

Independent

Daily Mail

The Sun

Public Interest in HIV Prosecutions

posted: 02/12/2009

Last night there was a panel discussion at City University, London on Criminal prosecutions for HIV transmission, which was a success. A speaker from the Crown Prosecution Service talked about when it is not in the ‘public interest’ to prosecute.

It seems the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is now changing its view on what is ‘the public interest’ – as a result of preparing its new policy on prosecuting assisted suicide. This is forcing it to look more carefully at what is the ‘public interest.’

HIV prosecutions not in the public interest

George House Trust will be looking to see how we can persuade the Crown Prosecution Service that prosecuting sexual transmission of HIV or any other infection is definitely not in the public interest.

When reckless HIV transmissions were first prosecuted, and when the Crown Prosecution Service was writing its first guidelines for HIV prosecutions, George House Trust (among others) argued very strongly that HIV stigma and discrimination and its consequences should all be considered as powerful public interest arguments against any HIV prosecutions.

We said it is never ‘in the public interest’ to drive people away from HIV testing and treatment of a life-limiting condition for fear of the law. The public health of very many people is significantly damaged by prosecuting very few (there have only been 15 HIV prosecutions).

Unfortunately we couldn't persuade the CPS to take the broad, social, view of public interest and the unintended consequences of prosecuting HIV transmission - a life-limiting condition subject to serious social stigma. But may be things are changing on the 'public interest' and how this is defined.

George House Trust will continue to work with the HIV sector and others to see whether we can persuade prosecutors now to take a broader view to consider unintended harms to public health and worsening stigma as part of the ‘public interest.’

Relevant consultations

Code for Crown Prosecutors is being redrafted and is open to public consultation - deadline Jan 11 2010

Consultation on prosecuting assisted suicide - deadline mid-December.

Consultation on Prosecutor's Core Standards especially the discussion of community engagement - deadline Jan 18 2010
 

Hospital Detention for HIV

posted: 07/09/2009

How many people now remember that 24 years ago a Manchester gay man with HIV was locked up for 10 days in the  hospital by order of the city's Magistrates, just because he had AIDS?

It has never happened since in this country, but HIV lock-ups often happen in Sweden, and might even happen once again in this country, if Parliament allows the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency to get their way.

The government is consulting on changing the infectious diseases regulations which could allow it to force people into hospital isolation wards and more, if they have infectious diseases. The deadline for comments on the proposed rules is at the end of this month.

We are campaigning to make sure people living with HIV cannot be touched by any updated public health law and regulations.

What happened almost 25 years ago in Manchester?
There is a very brief mention in our history page for 1985,  but it was an event that rocketed Manchester and HIV onto the front page of the papers locally and nationally. Manchester AIDS-line, which became George House Trust, was closely involved and (now Councillor) Paul Fairweather, a gay rights worker at the former Gay Centre in Bloom Street, was in the thick of the campaigning. There were pickets outside the Town Hall and the old Monsall Isolation Hospital, and a national demonstration was held here. We’ve never forgotten it, and at Secrets and Lives, Cllr Paul Fairweather reminded our audience about it.

Old files and papers

We've dusted off old files and the papers to find out exactly what happened and tell the story again here. We’ll be reminding the government that they didn’t get away with discriminating against people with HIV in 1985, and shouldn’t even be thinking of making laws and regulations that would allow this again today.

What was it like in 1985?
It’s a bygone age in UK HIV history. For a start no-one talked about HIV - if people ever talked about the virus, they called it HTLV3. There were no tests available at clinics for it in Manchester, only in London.

There were only two people known to have AIDS in the city, and both gay men were ill in Monsall Hospital. In the whole of the UK there were only 100 people, gay men and haemophiliacs, with AIDS at the start of 1985. Now there are over 70,000 with HIV.

We knew the virus was sexually transmitted but not how exactly - so oral sex was thought to be high risk, as well as anal and vaginal sex. The connection between the virus and AIDS wasn’t properly understood. Gay men were struggling to get to grips with the idea of using condoms.

Hysteria and Panic

It was at the height of AIDS hysteria, but the first public campaign - the tombstone and leaflet campaign warning Don’t Die of AIDS - didn’t start until the following year, 1986.

In the UK press, AIDS was in the headlines and caused alarm. In most newspapers such as the Sun and Manchester Evening News, and on radio stations (Piccadilly Radio - now Key 103 and Magic), the prejudice was obvious.

Haemophiliacs were "innocent victims," whereas gay men and injecting drug-users brought it upon themselves. Firemen banned the kiss of life, and holiday makers cut short cruises on the QE2 for fear of getting AIDS from a passenger. A 9-year old haemophiliac was allowed to go to school, but some parents kept kids away. Actor Rock Hudson died of AIDS in the first days of October. He was the first major public figure known to die of AIDS. Almost as much of a shock to most people was to discover such a butch film star was gay.

Swirling in a cesspit of our own making - Manchester Chief Constable

And the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, James Anderton, preached that gay men were "swirling about in a human cesspit of their own making". Gay papers, like Capital Gay and Mancunian Gay, provided the most accurate news and information.
 

Can I go home please, just for the weekend?

One of the two men in Monsall Hospital decided in the middle of September 1985 that he wanted a weekend break from hospital, to go to his home in South Manchester, where he would be looked after by his friends and family, and then he’d go back in the hospital. He asked his doctor if he could do this one Saturday morning. The doctor refused. In fact the doctor couldn’t stop him leaving the hospital and knew this, but didn’t tell the man.

Whirlwind of events that Saturday

A whirlwind of events followed that Saturday. We don’t know why, but the doctor panicked. He called the Council’s medical officer and asked her to stop him leaving the hospital. She called the Chair of the Environmental Services Committee, who authorised the making of an emergency application to the Magistrates Court.

The City Solicitor was called in and a special sitting of the Magistrates was held. The Magistrates, in open court, granted an Order for 3 weeks detention in the hospital, named him and said it was to protect the public from AIDS.

The hostile local press and independent radio were tipped off and his name and the details were broadcast and published - including in the national press.

The man has no idea any of this is going on behind his back, until he was presented with the Court Order.

10 days detained by Court Order

He spent the next 10 days in compulsory detention at hospital before he and his friends could get a solicitor and the Crown Court could review the decision. No doubt the stress added to his health problems.

Outrage and Uproar

Meanwhile absolute uproar broke out in the city’s gay community. The Council had already promised to do what it could to dampen down AIDS hysteria. But here was the council using the courts in a way which just poured petrol on the flames of that hysteria. The Public Health (infectious Diseases) Act had been rushed through Parliament only in the summer of the year before (1984) and in February of 1985, AIDS was quickly added to the official list of infectious diseases. Now the Council was using that panic list and law to detain a gay man who posed no health threat to anyone.

There were demonstrations and pickets outside the hospital and Town Hall.

Crown Court frees man

The Crown Court decided to approve the application by the man's solicitor for the order to be withdrawn 'by consent.' The man was spared the rest of the 11 days of forcible detention.

Withdrawal ‘by consent’ means the Council didn't attempt to defend its application, and it could not have produced a shred of evidence to justify the man's continued detention, because legally it was indefensible - he was no health risk to anyone.

A city behaving badly - but then it promises: never again
The city’s gay men’s consultative committee demanded the city council promise never to use the law again, and to campaign for its repeal. The vote was tight, but it agreed not to use the law again.

All involved - hospital doctor, city health officer, chair of social services, city solicitor, magistrates clerk, magistrates, the radio and press, all behaved badly. They had no legal power to act as they did in the circumstances and all were swept up in the panic and power-rush of taking emergency action. Nobody stopped to think and ask questions. No-one told the man in Monsall. He had no solicitor to say the law doesn’t allow you to do this to me.

Why are we concerned now?
In Sweden a man with HIV was ordered to be detained and isolated under their public health laws for an incredible seven years. Detention and isolation happens to quite a number of people with HIV in Sweden. Fortunately the European Court of Human Rights said in 2005 that this is illegal and breaches people's human rights under Article 5.

They ruled that detention for HIV always has to be a last resort, after everything else has been tried and has failed to prevent the person from passing it on. We don't think that judgement goes far enough - after all the criminal law can be used against reckless sexual transmission of HIV and that's more than enough protection for public health. But at least the European Court has drawn a useful line in the sand to protect people with HIV from unreasonable detention on health grounds.

There are some infectious diseases that are passed on easily by day to day contact. If they are serious - for example multiple drug-resistant TB - then there is a case for using the law to prevent its spread and protect the public, but only if the person doesn’t agree to temporary isolation for treatment, until they are no longer a risk to others.

Why are Sexually Transmitted Infections even on the list of infectious diseases?

Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) are not public health hazards like drug-resistant TB. HIV and other sexually transmitted infections aren’t passed on by touching, sneezing and the like. People need to have sex with the person and even then the risk of HIV transmission is pretty low. We think there is no case at all for any STI to be included in public health powers in the 21st century in the UK.

HIV - we take action and we fight back

The government seems not to have learnt anything from Manchester's shameful behaviour in 1985 - you mess with people with HIV at your peril. We won’t stand for it again. We take action and we fight back. And we hope Manchester City Council will now do as it was asked 24 years ago and campaign to remove any possibility of this happening again under public health laws and regulations. 

Here’s a full transcript of the 1985 reports in Mancunian Gay - written by the campaigners in the thick of the action. You can see this for yourself, along with other papers in the local history collection, in Manchester central library, St Peter’s Square.

The European Court of Human Rights judgment Enhorn v Sweden 2005

A useful article on the Enhorn v Sweden and its application to UK Public Health law and the detention of people living with HIV 

[Medical Law Review 2006 14(1):132-143; doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwi038
© The Author [2005]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
The online version of this article is published under open access. Users are entitled to disseminate etc. this article for non-commercial purposes provided that: the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with the correct citation details given.]
 

Disability Hate Crime Conference

posted: 02/02/2009

Manchester is to have a Disability Hate Crime conference in March. Disability hate crimes are crimes where prejudice and discrimination were behind the main offence - so a physical attack with abuse about having HIV would be assault made worse because of the disability hate crime abuse.

The law automatically treats HIV as a disability so people living with HIV have this extra legal protection. The way the law works is if a person is found guilty of the main offence (such as assault), then the court should then consider whether there is also evidence of a hate crime. If there is evidence of a hate crime, the punishment should be increased.

The Manchester conference will look at how well the law is actually working. The problem is people rarely report any disability hate crimes, especially those involving stigmatised conditions like HIV. However there has been at least one HIV disability hate crime that did come to court in the NorthWest - a violent assault over HIV disclosure

The Crown Prosecution Service conference is a way to work with disabled people and local advocacy groups to identify what CPS Greater Manchester and other Manchester Criminal Justice Agencies can do to boost the confidence of people with HIV and other disabilities to report hate crime. It will also show how Criminal Justice Agencies are trying to support disabled people who have endured hate crimes.

On the conference agenda is the chance to

• talk about your needs and concerns

• talk about practical ways to boost confidence in reporting Disability Hate Crime.

Want to take part?

The conference is on Thursday 5 March (9:30 am – 4:00pm) at Manchester Town Hall.

To attend you need to book a place. Please complete both the booking and monitoring forms and return them to david.leighton@cps.gsi.gov.uk by Monday 16 February or call 0161 827 4715. The conference agenda is here.