Judge Throws Out Manchester Prosecution
posted: 08/02/2008
"It would be an injustice to proceed" - judge
In early October 2007 a Manchester man was charged with two offences - both with reckless and with deliberate Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) for transmitting HIV to a woman partner. He was remanded in custody until the case against him was dramatically dismissed late on Thursday afternoon at Manchester Crown Court. The maximum sentence for reckless GBH is 5 years.
Dismissing the case, Judge Rudland said he was influenced by the rulings of judges in the last two cases, which were at Preston and Kingston on Thames. This is now the third case in a row where the CPS have failed to secure a conviction. However another case in Leicester will go to full trial at the start of September.
The judge used the Crown Prosecution Service's own new policy for prosecuting HIV transmission cases against them.
holes in prosecution case
The Judge identified several holes in the prosecution case because the evidence has to be "sufficient" for a jury to be able to convict when there is an application to dismiss the case. "Sufficient" is a fairly high test for proof because it means more than having an apparent case, it means there has to be enough evidence for a jury to safely convict someone. The prosecution had not done a thorough job so that there were major gaps and doubts about their case.
In particular they had not carried out a detailed virological comparison between the HIV of the complainant and of the accused. The judge suggested this was now a basic requirement in these cases under the CPS Policy because this could definitively prove he could not have infected her.
There were several other problems with the evidence which worried the judge listed mainly people who might have been the source of infection. Everyone of these people needs to be clearly ruled out as possible sources for the complainant's HIV and the prosecution had failed to do this.
complainant's fears
The Court heard the complainant was very worried about her sexual history being picked over in detail in court - if the case had gone to full trial this would be a humiliating ordeal for almost anyone to endure. The Judge made the usual reporting restrictions ruling in sexual cases taht bans any publication of details that might identify the complainant.
George House Trust comment
Prosecuting people for transmitting HIV causes more harm than good to our society. Prosecuting worsens HIV stigma and discrimination at a time when the law on disability hate crime is intended to help reduce HIV hate. It worsens public health because it puts off some of the people most at risk of HIV from testing and treatment. We know that people tested and treated for HIV are much less likely to pass on HIV. It gives false confidence to people who expect to be told about HIV, even though 1 in 3 people with HIV do not know they have HIV yet.
Better services and support for people to help HIV positive people manage the risks of transmission, and for people newly diagnosed to deal with being diagnosed and how they came to become positive are more useful. Mediation between people where HIV transmission has happened may give people a much better way of coping with the shock of a new diagnosis and how this happened.
Permalink