Supreme Court of Finland R2012/1093 – KKO:2015:83

A, aware of his HIV infection, had several times unprotected anal sex with B without telling him about his illness. B had not been infected with HIV. The question of whether A had caused a serious danger to B’s life or health.

This document has been translated from its original language using DeepL Pro (AI translation technology) in order to make more content available to HIV Justice Academy users. We acknowledge the limitations of machine translation and do not guarantee the accuracy of the translated version.

Original text is available at https://finlex.fi/fi/oikeus/kko/kko/2015/20150083

Supreme Court, Second Chamber, Criminal Division, Judgment 690/2019 of 11 Mar. 2020, Rec. 1807/2018

INJURY. Transmission of HIV in cases in which the infected person knew of his partner’s disease. The complainant knew that her partner was a carrier of HIV, so having agreed to have sex with him, without any kind of prophylaxis, the transmission of the disease is not worthy of criminal reproach. External evidence of the disease that the complainant had to perceive, since she herself was diagnosed months later, and neither after this diagnosis, nor when she denounced an alleged aggression, did she make any allusion to the contagion of the disease. In dubio pro reo. Self endangerment of the complainant herself.

The SC dismissed the appeal filed against the sentence of the AP Madrid and confirmed the conviction for the crime of aggravated injury due to HIV infection.

This document has been translated from its original language using DeepL Pro (AI translation technology) in order to make more content available to HIV Justice Academy users. We acknowledge the limitations of machine translation and do not guarantee the accuracy of the translated version.

Semba Judgement, High Court of Zimbabwe (2015)

Judge Charles Hungwe’s reasoning that allowed the appeal on behalf of a 26 year old woman, was charged with the crime of deliberate transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”) as defined in s 79 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law Code for briefly mistakenly breastfeeding another woman’s baby.

The judgement found that the prosecution was “ill-conceived as the legislature did not intend that breast-feeding by infected but ignorant women be criminalised. In any event there was no proof that the appellant fully appreciated that her conduct would result in HIV transmission. In the result she was entitled to an acquittal at her trial.”

E.L. Judgement, Malawi High Court (2016)

On 19 January 2017, the Zomba High Court in Malawi delivered a landmark ruling on the application of criminal law to cases of HIV transmission and exposure through breastfeeding.

The appellant was a woman living with HIV who was convicted of negligently and recklessly doing an act which is “likely to spread the infection of any disease which is dangerous to life” under section 192 of the Malawi Penal Code for accidentally breastfeeding another person’s child. She was unrepresented at her trial and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.

Before the High Court, she appealed her conviction and sentence and challenged the constitutionality of section 192 of the Penal Code for being vague and overbroad. She raised expert evidence to show the “infinitesimally small risk” of HIV transmission by women on antiretroviral treatment through breastfeeding. The State agreed that the appellant’s conviction and sentence should be overturned and set aside.

At the hearing on 2 December 2016, the Court, per Ntaba J, granted an order that the appellant’s identity be concealed to protect her confidentiality and that of the children concerned.

On 19 January 2017, the High Court acquitted the appellant and ordered her immediate release. It held that the proceedings in the trial court were irregular and “blatantly bias” against the appellant, compromising her right to a fair trial. The Court held that the appellant did not have the requisite knowledge or belief that breastfeeding the complainant’s child was likely to spread HIV and cautioned against the misapplication of criminal law in cases of HIV transmission and exposure. The Court recommended the constitutional challenge be filed for separate determination considering the national interest in the issue.

The appellant was represented by Mr Wesley Mwafulirwa of John Tennyson Associates.