Press complaints ruling about whether or not The Argus newspaper in the UK was right publishing the name of man arrested “on suspicion of putting sexual partners at risk of HIV” before he was charged. The complaint was not upheld.
Amicus Curiae brief of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Community AIDS Resource and Education Services, Michigan Positive Action Coalition, and Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service Inc.
Urges court to drop a bioterrorism charge against an HIV positive man who bit his neighbour during an argument, explaining the facts about HIV transmission risk. The bioterrorism charges were dropped.
Pity Mpofu Samukelisiwe Mlilo v The State, Consitutional Court of Zimbabwe
On appeal, the Consitutional Court of Zimbabwe decided the only defence to prosecution is disclosure of known or potential HIV infection and suggested people with HIV can be discriminated against by the law if the reason is to protect public health.
Mpofu/Mlilo vs State, Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe
Challenges Section 79 of the Zimbabwe Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act 23 of 2004, with the court deciding the provision was overly broad and unconstitutionally vague.
R. v. Mabior
Ruling on “significant risk of bodily harm” which ostensibly found that people with HIV in Canada do not need to disclose their HIV-status before sex only if (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low, and (ii) condom protection was used.
Her Majesty the Queen v. Henry Gerald Cuerrier
Ruling that failure to disclose HIV status constitutes fraud. Consequently, a partner’s consent to unprotected sexual activity is not valid. This ruling allows people with HIV in Canada who do not disclose their HIV-status before sex to be prosecuted under sexual assault laws.
New Zealand Police v Justin William Dalley
Clarifies that use of a condom satisfies the requirement to take ‘reasonable care’ to prevent HIV transmission during vaginal sex, and that ‘failsafe’ precautions are not required by law. Also finds that oral sex without a condom (and without ejaculation) satisfies the standard of ‘reasonable care and precautions’. This ruling means that disclosure of HIV status before vaginal sex is not required as long as a condom is used. Disclosure before oral sex is not required.
Zaburoni v The Queen
Clarifies that recklessness regarding HIV transmission risk is not the same as intention to transmit HIV. This ruling means that if people are convicted of having sex without disclosing their HIV status, they will be convicted of lesser charges with lower penalty.