Criminal transmission of HIV

In many countries, the intentional or reckless infection of a person with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is considered to be a crime. This is often conflated, in laws and in discussion, with criminal exposure to HIV, which does not require the transmission of the virus and often, as in the cases of spitting and biting, does not even include a realistic means of transmission. People who do so can be charged with criminal transmission of HIV, murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault. Some states have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission (or HIV exposure), as in the United States, while others charge under the existing laws, as in the United Kingdom.

Modes of transmission

Medical research has identified the following situations in which HIV may be transmitted:

• Sexual transmission where one person with an HIV infection engages in unprotected sexual intercourse with another, thus transferring the virus;
• Blood donation and transfusions or other medical procedures involving biological material such as blood, tissue, organs, or semen from an infected donor; HIV has been transmitted through the organ transplantation of kidney, liver, heart, pancreas, bone, and skin, all of which are blood-containing organs or highly vascular tissues (but not through transplantation of bone without marrow, corneas, etc.), but this mode of transmission, along with blood transfusions, has become rare since the development of accurate HIV-testing procedures.
• The use of unsterilized needles/syringes for medical, recreational drug use (including a range of drug paraphernalia), tattooing, body piercing, etc.;
• Pregnancy and postnatal transmission (e.g., breast feeding)

Blood donation

France began testing blood products for HIV antibodies in June 1985, Canada in November 1985, and Switzerland in May 1986. Germany inconsistently tested plasma products between 1987 and 1993, as did Japan in 1985 and 1986. There were criminal investigations and prosecutions of those persons found to be responsible for these delays (see Weinberg et al.]. At least 20 countries now have plans in place to compensate some classes of individuals, e.g. hemophiliacs, infected by the transfusion of HIV-contaminated blood and blood products.

The legal, political and social problems

After the initial stage of Acute HIV Infection which often results in flu-like symptoms for a few weeks, HIV infection has a latency stage usually described as chronic infection. This involves few or no symptoms and can last anywhere from two weeks to twenty years or more, depending on the individual. A person who engages in sexual activity, shares injecting drugs equipment, or donates blood during this time may therefore have no reasonable basis upon which to suspect that he or she is at risk of transmitting HIV. The American Civil Liberties Union and other national groups have expressed concern that many newly drafted laws are too vague because they may criminalize individuals by virtue of their being among the groups of people at higher risk, e.g. injecting drug users, sexually active men who have sex with men, migrants from higher prevalence countries etc., which will simply encourage and reinforce prejudice and discrimination against the groups identified.

Moreover, most countries only criminalize HIV exposure or transmission if a person has been tested for HIV, and knows their positive test results. Because knowledge of status is a requirement for prosecution, criminal laws may act as a disincentive to testing, especially among the most high risk communities.

The offense would therefore have to be based on the exposure of others to risk or endangerment. This may place a legal duty of routine medical testing or of medical testing for cause, followed by a duty of disclosure on those who have actual or imputed knowledge of their condition, but ignores the social reality that the stigma associated with HIV may make disclosure difficult, e.g. loss of marriage and employment through prejudice and discrimination, or dangerous in communities where violence against HIV-positive people is common. After all, there is no confidentiality agreement in the bedroom and complaints leading to prosecutions may be initiated out of revenge.

The problems may be particularly acute in marriages and more permanent relationships where disclosure may be an admission of sexual infidelity, rape or shared IV drug use. Seeking a less obvious route such as suddenly suggesting the use of a condom may be difficult without explanation of the implications to the other partner.

The political issues are many:

• Although other STIs can be cured and are now not normally fatal, STI infections can have severe consequences. Legislatures therefore need to justify why HIV should be treated differently from, say, infection with gonorrhea.
• There may be human rights, civil rights and constitutional issues of privacy to consider.
• Whether medical screening would need to be made compulsory; if so, with what degree of regularity; how would such compulsory testing possibly be enforced across all populations in all circumstances; and what should the testing centers do with the information thus obtained. (For example, good practice now is to offer all women HIV testing as a part of their pregnancy management regime; in this context, note that some life insurance companies already require disclosure of HIV-relevant information as a precondition of the validity of the policies issued.)
• If reckless transmission is criminalized and there are many high-profile prosecutions, those who might be infected may be deterred from testing so that they spare themselves actual knowledge of their positive status; such a phenomenon on a wide scale could have serious public health implications.
• The legislation might have to amend existing laws on medical confidentiality so that doctors, nurses, and other health workers can trace those possibly exposed to the virus. But if their knowledge could be compelled testimony in any subsequent criminal trial, this might deter those infected from making any, or any complete, disclosure of their sexual or other activities which, again, could have serious public health implications.

Ruth Lowbury, executive director of the Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual Health in London (UK) and George R. Kinghorn, clinical director for communicable diseases at Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield (UK), argue that for the above and related reasons (such as the potential risks of prosecution of HIV/AIDS affected people may dissuade them from warning present or ex-partners about, "criminal prosecutions for HIV transmission threaten public health".

Lowbury and Kinghorn are sceptical of the preventive role of prosecution for reducing the infection rate and recommend that research be carried out to determine whether the net effect of prosecution is to decrease or increase the growth rate of the epidemic. They conclude their report stating that "in the case of criminal prosecution for reckless transmission of HIV, the public interest is not best served by pursuing justice against the few at the expense of the health of the many." The same argument has been made by a number of lawyers, policy makers and sociologists in recent years. See an article by Dr Matthew Weait (Keele University) and Dr Yusef Azad (National AIDS Trust) here.

There is an report by the World Health Organization on Criminalizing HIV Transmission, which can be found here.

The legal, political and social problems associated with HIV were discussed at a seminar series at Keele University and Birkbeck, University of London, in 2005/6. The papers from those seminars can no longer be accessed here.

Legal events in connection with criminal-transmission events

In many English-speaking countries and in most of the states who have signed the European Convention of Human Rights, knowingly infecting others with HIV can lead to criminal prosecution.

In a 2004 survey of the countries which have signed the European Convention of Human Rights, the Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS found that at least one prosecution had occurred in about half of these countries, and that in Finland, Sweden and Slovakia, about 0.5% to 1% of all people reported to be living with HIV/AIDS had been prosecuted for alleged intentional or "negligent" transmission of HIV. In many developing countries such as Thailand where the HIV/AIDS pandemic is much more serious, laws are either weak or non-existent regarding criminalization of intentional transmission.[1]

Germany

In the Federal Republic of Germany on 16 August 2010, Nadja Benaissa of the German pop music group No Angel admitted to sex with several men while knowing her HIV-positive status, and infecting one of those men, who subsequently made a complaint that led to her prosecution. She was convicted on one count of causing grievous bodily harm and two of attempted bodily harm and was given a two year prison sentence, which was suspended. Benaissa had claimed she had been told by doctors that the risk of passing on the virus was "practically zero".source

Australia

In New South Wales a person with HIV must disclose their status to all sexual partners. In other states, there is no specific legislation to require disclosure and whether or not the law requires it is open to debate. Intentionally transmitting the virus is a crime in all states, either specifically, or because it meets the definition of a more general offense such as conduct endangering life (this varies from state to state).

Canada

The leading case is R. v. Cuerrier (1998) 127 CCC (3d) 1 (SCC) where the defendant was charged with aggravated assault for the sexual transmission of HIV under s268 Canadian Criminal Code. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the trial judge had misdirected himself and ordered a new trial on two counts of aggravated assault but, in May 1999, the Attorney-General for British Columbia announced that a new trial would not take place.

The Canadian Supreme Court ruling caused difficulty because even though it only concerned non-disclosure of HIV-positive status in sexual situations, it unanimously rejected the 1889 English authority of R v Clarence (as did the Court of Appeal in England 6 years later in the first case in England, Mohammed Dica. L'Heureux-Dubé stated that any fraud could vitiate consent to all types of assault because the autonomy and physical integrity of the person has been violated. Thus, because the Canadian legislature has declined to criminalize the transmission of HIV, the judiciary must address the issues as and when they arise. Subsequent legal precedent has established that failure to disclose HIV-positive status, combined with failure to utilize protective measures (condom use), is sufficiently fraudulent behaviour to constitute turning "consensual" sex into aggravated sexual assault, since the other party has been denied the information necessary to give properly informed consent.

On 1 December 2005, Jian Ghomeshi filed a report on this issue for the CBC. He asked whether there is a legal obligation to disclose HIV status. He held up the case of Johnson Aziga, who was diagnosed in 1996 but then allegedly had unprotected sex with at least 13 women. Aziga was charged with two counts of murder and 11 counts of aggravated sexual assault; the prosecution claims that he did not disclose his status. On 4 April 2009, Aziga was found guilty of the two counts of first degree murder as well as the lesser counts. The current precedent in Canada stands as any person who has HIV, fails to disclose the fact to their sexual partner, and does not take some sort of protective measure (such as condom use), is guilty of aggravated sexual assault as per R. v. Cuerrier and subsequent cases. Aziga was convicted of first degree murder since under Canadian law, any death as a result of aggravated sexual assault (two of the women died as a result of the HIV infection received from intercourse with Aziga) is automatically first degree murder as per section 231 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Hamish Stewart, a University of Toronto law professor, says

Non-disclosure is a form of deception if it is the kind of thing that a reasonable person would expect to be disclosed... If the Crown can show that the accused knew that he was imposing this kind of risk of death on them, and was indifferent to the risk, then that would probably be sufficient to satisfy the element of intent for murder.

Several Canadian courts have ruled that people who are not informed that a sexual partner is HIV-positive cannot truly give consent to sex. As a result, the death of Aziga's partners is automatically considered to be murder (instead of the lesser charge of manslaughter).

Finland

The first case of criminal HIV infection in Finland was that of Steven Thomas, a US citizen from New York, who was convicted in 1997 in Helsinki for knowingly infecting Finnish women with HIV during 1993–1996. In January 1997, Finnish police published Thomas' picture in newspapers and stated that Thomas may have infected tens or even hundreds of Finnish women with HIV. Seventeen women said they had been in unprotected sexual contact with Thomas.

Thomas was given a 14 year prison sentence at the Helsinki court on 10 July 1997 for 17 counts of attempted manslaughter.. Thomas was found to have infected five of the 17 women with HIV, and was ordered to pay damages of $63,000-$73,000 to each infected victim. The sentence was widely criticized within the legal system, because under Finnish law the maximum sentence for multiple counts of attempted manslaughter is 12 years. Lauri Lehtimaja, the Ombudsman of the Eduskunta gave a warning to the court judge about his misuse of the law. The Helsinki Court of Appeal lowered the sentence in December 1997 to be 11 years and 6 months of imprisonment. The documents of the case were classified for 40 years.

Another Finnish man convicted of spreading HIV knowingly through having unprotected sex with many women without disclosing his HIV serostatus was Aki Matti Hakkarainen . He was born in 1983 in Southern Finland and has lived in Rovaniemi since 2002. He was also sentenced in 2005 to one year and nine months in prison for a similar crime. In August 2007, Hakkarainen was arrested by Rovaniemi police after being reported by a young woman who said she had contracted HIV from Hakkarainen during unprotected sex. On October 5, 2007, the police published the name and picture of Hakkarainen in newspapers in an effort to reach every women who had had sexual intercourse with Hakkaraien.

In court, Hakkarainen admitted that he was guilty of having unprotected sex with the women but denied trying to infect them with the virus. On April 22, 2008, the Rovaniemi court decided that Hakkarainen purposefully infected five women with HIV and in August 2008 Hakkarainen was found guilty of five counts of aggravated assault and 14 counts of attempted aggravated assault because he did not inform his sexual partners about his condition, he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay 45 000–55 000 euros compensation to the five women that contracted the virus.

New Zealand

A New Zealand District Court ruled on 6 October 2005 that HIV-positive people need not tell sexual partners about their status so long as safe sex is practiced. In the case being ruled on, the man had used a condom during intercourse but not during oral sex. His partner had not been infected. The same man was convicted of criminal nuisance earlier for having unprotected sex with another partner without revealing his HIV status.

Pending an investigation, a 40 year old bisexual man, is thought to have infected at least five younger gay men between 2008 and 2009. Revelations came after one of the young gay men laid a formal complaint to the New Zealand police. A popular website www.gaynz.com approached the man regarding his practices. Sex venues have also shut their doors to what is being called a 'HIV predator'. On 28 May 2009 police arrested the 40 year old man accused of infecting three men with the virus and attempting to infect a fourth.. The court on June 16 heard that two more people have come forward to lay formal complaints against the man, bringing the total so far to six. The eight new charges laid against the man include that he "with reckless disregard for the safety of others caused - or attempted to cause - grievious bodily harm to five males aged 17, 20, 24, 26, and 31, plus a female aged 19." He also now faces charges of "wilfully and without justification or excuse causing in a male aged 20 and a female aged 19 a disease, namely HIV."

The trial set for 2010 will not proceed as Glenn Mills, the Auckland man accused of knowingly exposing fourteen young people to HIV, has been found dead in his Mt Eden remand prison cell on 30 November 2009. Mills was due in court for a hearing regarding the progress of the case. In recent weeks he had made two unsuccessful applications to be released on bail. He has been on remand since the first of a series of charges were laid against him on 28 May 2009.. After the death of Glenn Mills, five of the original complainants confirmed that they felt pressured by police and www.gaynz.com to come forward and lay formal complaints against Mills. They had said that they were willing participants and that they now felt responsible for his suicide. Two other complainants said that they felt they were being bullied by police and www.gaynz.com editor Jay Bennie into 'spinning' a story. Mr Bennie is also the owner of several gay venues - where 'bareback' sex is encouraged. According to three of the complainants; Glenn Mills was one of his first clients.

Russia

Infecting another individual with HIV is a felony.

United Kingdom

For a full discussion of the issues raised in sexual transmission, see Consent (criminal law)

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland HIV transmission generally is prosecuted under ss 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 which criminalizes the reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm. Occasionally prosecutors have used ss18 along with ss20. Ss18 deals with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and this is commonly described as 'deliberate' HIV transmission. Scots law (the law and legal system in Scotland) is different to that in the rest of the UK: see below for the cases in Scotland. There have been no cases prosecuted in Northern Ireland so far. The law is the same as in England and Wales except that the maximum prison sentence is 7 years, rather than the 5 years in England and Wales for reckless transmission under ss20.

By August 2010 there had been 17 prosecutions for HIV transmission leading to 13 convictions. Most of those prosecuted were men accused of infecting female partners during sex; 3 were of men for infecting other men and 2 women were accused of infecting male partners. (There has also been one conviction for transmission of hepatitis B only). As in many jurisdictions, a number of the prosecutions have been of migrants and especially of Africans, including people seeking seeking asylum or who have been accepted as refugees).

In one case (Kouassi Adaye), the defendant had not been tested and diagnosed with HIV, but he was charged on the basis that a GP had told him he was at high risk of having HIV.

In only six of the cases was there a 'not guilty' plea, and two of these went on to (unsuccessfully) appeal.

It is significant that four of the six not guilty pleas ended with the cases being dismissed by the judge, or the person being acquitted. These four people were represented by a lawyer expert in HIV cases.

An important issue that arises is establishing the source of the complainant's HIV infection. Although it cannot prove the route (which partner infected the other) nor timing of transmission, phylogenetic analysis has been used in many trials to demonstrate how closely related HIV strains in samples taken from the defendant and complainant are. For an account of the issues and problems surrounding phylogenetic analysis in criminal investigation see the National AIDS Manual and National AIDS Trust briefing paper.

It has been notable that people charged more recently who were in contact with expert HIV community organisations and were then represented by expert lawyers who disputed the transmission evidence by reference to phylogenetic analysis, have all been found not guilty or were acquitted. This briefing paper HIV Forensics: The use of phylogenetic analysis as evidence in criminal investigation of HIV transmission is for professionals in the criminal justice system and HIV virologists or clinicians called as expert witnesses. It explains how scientific evidence known as phylogenetic analysis should and should not be used in criminal trials for the transmission of HIV. Recent claims that phylogenetics can prove the direction of HIV transmission (which partner infected the other) is disputed by experts.

In England and Wales, the community HIV sector has worked closely with the police to develop an extensive set of national good investigation practice guidelines and information about HIV in for the investigating complaints of reckless or intentional HIV and STI transmission. This is proving useful in enabling the police to do a more professional job and avoid wasting time on investigations that cannot lead to a prosecution (e.g. in England and Wales exposing someone to HIV where there has been no HIV transmission is not a crime of under ss20). Reminding the police of these investigation guidelines has helped resolve many problems.

Additionally in England and Wales, the HIV sector worked with the Crown Prosecution Service, which must authorise all such prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service produced a Policy Statement and Legal Guidance on 'Prosecuting cases Involving the Intentional or Reckless Sexual Transmission of Infection'. This Guidance provides helpful clarification on when prosecutions for HIV transmission are appropriate. Reminding local investigating police and the local Crown Prosecutor of these has also helped resolve problems and cases being dropped.

The performance of judges in English and Welsh HIV transmission cases was critically examined in a poster [Do Judges Understand HIV? presented at the British HIV Association Conference held in Spring 2009.

The length of sentences given by judges for HIV transmission has been a cause of concern among HIV organisations and representations were made to the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The sentencing guidelines for crimes of assault have now been published.

In R. v Dica, the Court of Appeal held that a person was reckless if, knowing that they were HIV-positive, he or she transmitted HIV to a person who had not been told of the infection. It was not necessary to prove that the transmission had involved an assault for the "inflicting" of the disease. They acknowledged that there could be a higher standard of disclosure expected of someone in a relationship, compared with the "known risks" involved in casual sex. A critical discussion of the Dica case by Matthew Weait can be found here.

In R. v Konzani, the same court held that a person accused of recklessly transmitting HIV could only raise the defense of consent, including an honest belief in consent, in cases where that consent was a "willing" or "conscious" consent. In other words, the court distinguished between “willingly running the risk of transmission” and “willingly consenting to the risk of transmission.” This suggests that consent will only operate as a defense — in all but the most exceptional of cases — where there has already been prior disclosure of known HIV-positive status. A critical discussion of the Konzani case is no longer available here.

As of August 2010, two women have been convicted for passing on an HIV infection in the UK. The first, from Cardiff, Wales, was jailed for 2 years;[2] the second, Sarah Jane Porter, was convicted of grievous bodily harm through the reckless transmission of HIV, and was sentenced to 32 months in prison in June 2006.[3]

A number of presentations from the Economic and Social Research Council funded seminar series HIV/AIDS and Law: Theory, Practice and Policy (Keele University) deal with the question of criminalization. They are no longer available here.

Scotland

Scots law uses the common law charge of 'culpable and reckless conduct' for HIV and STI cases. Because it is a common law offence there is no specific definition for ‘culpable and reckless conduct’, which may also be called ‘causing real injury’, but the draft Scottish Legal Code describes the offence: "a person who intentionally or recklessly causes injury to another person, without that person's consent, is guilty of the offence of causing unlawful injury." Exposure to an STI without transmission is also a crime in Scotland. The importance of consent has not been decided in Scottish law. All four cases (to the end of 2010) in Scotland were for infection with HIV, although Giovanni Mola was also convicted for transmitting Hepatitis C as well.

The first prosecution in the United Kingdom was the Scottish case in February 2001 of Stephen Kelly, who apparently had become HIV positive in prison through IV drug use. The judge ruled during the trial that evidence from blood tests obtained during a research study of prisoners could nonetheless be admitted as evidence against him. He was convicted of the Scots common law offence of "recklessly injuring" his former partner by infecting her with HIV and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. One prosecution was halted because the accused (Christopher Walker), who entered a plea of not guilty was found to be mentally incapable of standing trial and was discharged 'not guilty' and 'sectioned', meaning he was required to go to a secure mental hospital for treatment and care; the third (Giovanni Mola) received 9 years for both HIV and hepatitis C transmission to a woman, after being extradicted from Italy; the latest case in early 2010 was of Mark Devereaux who was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison: four women complained but only one of them was infected. In Scots law exposure to an HIV or an STI without transmission is also a common law crime. The Scottish cases are on page 3 of this table of UK prosecutions.

United States

Thirty-four states have prosecuted HIV positive individuals for not disclosing HIV status and exposing another person to the HIV virus. A person's intent to infect their partner while engaging in sexual intercourse and failure to disclose his or her status is committing a crime. A person donating HIV infected organs, tissues, and blood can be prosecuted for transmission of the virus. Spitting or transmitting HIV infected bodily fluids is considered a criminal offense in some states, particularly where the target is a prison guard. Some states consider criminal transmission of HIV as a misdemeanor. These states have laws that prosecute individuals for criminal exposure of HIV: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia , Idaho, Illinois , Indiana, Iowa , Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan , Mississippi, Missouri , Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York , North Dakota, Ohio , Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

In July 2010 the White House announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy, a change informed by public health law research carried out by Scott Burris, professor of law at Temple University and the director of the Public Health Law Research program. The official National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States concluded that “the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [criminalizing HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment.”

The administration strategy credits "The case against criminalization of HIV transmission", a piece by Burris and Edwin Cameron, a South African judge, in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2008. They wrote “The use of criminal law to address HIV infection is inappropriate except in rare cases in which a person acts with conscious intent to transmit HIV and does so.”

Consistent with the White House HIV/AIDS Strategy, there has been a growing movement to fight criminalization and HIV-specific criminal laws. In the fall of 2010, The Positive Justice Project, a campaign of the Center for HIV Law and Policy, was launched to combat HIV-related stigma and discrimination against people with HIV by the United States criminal justice system. A day-long launch meeting, held in New York, included more than 40 participants from legal, government, grant-making and community service organizations. The Positive Justice Project has since released a comprehensive manual of HIV-specific laws and prosecutions in the 50 states, District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, Federal government, and military.

See also

• http://aidsmap.co
• Bugchasing

Further reading

• Bernard, E Criminal HIV Transmission blog - an international collection of published news stories, opinion, and resources
• Bernard, E., Geretti, A-M, van Damme, A., Azad, Y. and Weait, M. (2007) HIV forensics: pitfalls and acceptable standards in the use of phylogenetic analysis as evidence in criminal investigations of HIV transmission HIV Medicine, 8, 382–387.*Chalmers, James 'The criminalisation of HIV Transmission' 28 Journal of Medical Ethics (2002) 160; Criminal Law Review (2004) 944;
• Donegan E, Lee H, Operskalski EA, Shaw GM, Kleinman SH, Busch MP, Stevens CE, Schiff ER, Nowicki MJ, Hollingsworth CG. Transfusion transmission of retroviruses: human T-lymphotropic virus types I and II compared with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Transfusion. 1994 Jun;34(6):478-83. PubMed ID: 94295061
• OSI 10 Reasons to Oppose Criminalization of HIV Exposure or Transmission;
• Spencer, J.R. 'Liability for Reckless Infection: Part 1' New Law Journal (12 March 2004) 384;
• Spencer, J.R. 'Liability for Reckless infection: Part 2' New Law Journal (26 March 2004) 448;
• Spencer, J.R. 'Reckless Infection in the Course of Appeal' New Law Journal (21 May 2004) 762;
• Warburton, Damian (2004) 'A Critical Review of English Law in Respect of Criminalising Blameworthy Behaviour by HIV+ Individuals' Journal of Criminal Law (2004), 55;
• Weait, Matthew (2007) Intimacy and Responsibility: the Criminalisation of HIV Transmission (Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish);
• Weait, Matthew 'Dica: Knowledge, Consent and the Transmission of HIV' New Law Journal (28 May 2004) 826;
• Weait, Matthew 'Criminal Law and the Sexual Transmission of HIV: R v Dica' 68(1) Modern Law Review (2005) 121; [4]
• Weait, Matthew 'Taking the blame: criminal law, social responsibility and the sexual transmission of HIV' 23(4) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law (2001) 441-457;
• Weait, Matthew & Azad, Yusef 'The criminalization of HIV transmission in England and Wales: Questions of Law and Policy' HIV/AIDS Policy and Law Review (August 2005) [5]
• Weinberg PD, Hounshell J, Sherman LA, Godwin J, Ali S, Tomori C, Bennett CL. Legal, financial, and public health consequences of HIV contamination of blood and blood products in the 1980s and 1990s. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb;136(4):312-9. PubMed ID: 11848729
• Weait, M. (2005) 'Knowledge, Autonomy and Consent: R v Konzani' Criminal Law Review, October: 763-772.
• Weait, M. (2001) 'Taking the Blame: Criminal Law, Social Responsibility and the Sexual Transmission of HIV' Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 23(1): 441-457

External links

• HIV and the criminal law (International resource from NAM)
• Criminal HIV Transmission Research Project Tops 100 Online Profiles
• HIV-Positive Spitter Sentenced to 13 Years
• Information concerning a number of European countries
• Information concerning England and Wales
• More information concerning England and Wales
• Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
• HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic (Ontario)Canada
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]