Midlands HIV Prosecution Stalls
posted: 04/01/2010
On Christmas Eve the case against a man accused of deliberately infecting a woman with HIV was adjourned for more evidence to be gathered. The man, who lives near Cannock in the West Midlands, was remanded on bail until the week beginning January 25 and will reappear at Wolverhampton Crown Court.
The 42 year old man, a former schoolteacher in Nigeria, is charged with unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm.
However prosecutor Sati Aujla admitted to the court there were difficulties involving the evidence against the defendant and a medical expert had been called in. She said they needed to know whether the strain of the virus that infected the woman was the one carried by the defendant. “A decision will then be made as to whether the Crown pursue with the matter,” Miss Aujla added.
Judge Michael Challinor told the defendant that it was essential the new evidence was obtained.
George House Trust comment
This appears to be another case showing why the police badly need detailed guidelines for investigating complaints about HIV transmission. Charging someone with deliberate HIV transmission (acting in a way intending that someone becomes infected) is unusual - almost every case in the UK has been for the lesser offence of reckless transmission (being careless). Proving there was HIV transmission between the man and the woman is hard enough – science alone cannot prove this – but proving he deliberately set out to infect her seems highly unlikely to succeed.
The HIV sector, including George House Trust, produced a report ‘Policing Transmission’ for the Association of Chief Police Officers on problems across the country in police investigations of HIV transmission complaints. Since then HIV organisations have worked to develop clear guidance for police investigators.
This case shows these investigation guidelines need to be adopted by police across the country. The case should never have got as far as Wolverhampton Crown Court without the police providing basic answers to questions of evidence and proof to the Crown Prosecutors.
Worse, the Crown Prosecution Service has again ignored its own prosecution practice guidelines and leapt to prosecute without checking the evidence is actually there to justify such a very grave charge. The official policy and guidelines is to satisfy themselves that they have such evidence and proof. They admitted in court that they haven't got this evidence yet.
The case in Manchester was thrown out by the judge in 2008 because the Crown Prosecution Service had failed to follow its own guidelines and could not produce the necessary evidence.
We hope the Wolverhampton judge follows the Manchester judge's example and dismisses the case for lack of evidence, when it comes to court again in late January.
What is even more unusual is that for such a serious charge the man is on bail - the Manchester man, for example, was held in prison for months.
Source
image © Gordon Griffiths and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence
Permalink