We thought we would share this article with you about a HIV positive man in Scotland who has been arrested after allegedly having unprotected sex with four women, putting them at risk from the virus.

While the article states that three of the women he slept with avoided catching the virus, a woman he had been with for six years found out she was HIV positive while pregnant with his twins, the article is based around the issues of prosecution.

This case has sparked controversy amongst HIV groups in Scotland who are contesting the prosecution of HIV positive people who have unprotected sex with non-sufferers, claiming that adults who engage in unprotected sex know they are exposing themselves to health risks. More controversy was sparked when the man was convicted for all four counts, even though only one of the women contracted HIV.

This is an interesting debate, and one that we would like to hear from you about.

Charities concerns over HIV conviction

Activists demand “highest standards of proof” before sufferers are prosecuted for spreading HIV, following a case in the north-east of Scotland.

20 January 2010 09:42 AM

Transmission: Charities argue some sufferers can pass on the virus before they know they are HIV positive. Pic: © STV

Leading HIV and AIDS charities have raised “serious concerns” over the prosecution of HIV-positive people who have unprotected sex with non-sufferers.

Campaigners have demanded the “highest standards of proof” before a case is brought against a sufferer for the reckless transmission of the virus.

It follows the prosecution of Richard Devereaux, who had unprotected sex with four different women across the north-east of Scotland, despite knowing of his HIV positive status for 14 years.

One of his victims found out she had contracted the virus when she was three months pregnant with twins, and subsequently had an abortion. However, the other three women were not infected.

The 41-year-old chef, who lives in Dundee, pled guilty to four counts of culpable and reckless conduct at the High Court in Edinburgh on Tuesday. He was remanded in custody to await sentence.

However, HIV Scotland and the National AIDS Trust have now expressed concerns that the case could lead to further prosecution. They believe Deveraux is the first person in the UK to be convicted of exposing someone to HIV without spreading the virus to them.

Activists say it is wrong to prosecute when no transmission occurs, arguing that adults who engage in unprotected sex know they are exposing themselves to health risks.

National AIDS Trust Chief Executive, Deborah Jack, said: “It is totally unjust to single out people with an HIV diagnosis for punishment for unprotected sex – we all need to be wiser and safer, looking after ourselves and those we have sex with.

“Most HIV transmissions are from people who have never had an HIV test. We recommend that the Scottish Executive change the law so that people with HIV cannot be charged with culpable and reckless conduct if no transmission took place.”

The trust also argued that exposing someone to the HIV virus is not a crime in England and Wales and should not be a crime in Scotland.

HIV Scotland also expressed worries about the case.

The charity’s Chief Executive, Roy Kilpatrick, said: “We are particularly worried about the fact that prosecutions were brought in this case in respect of three sexual partners of Mr Devereaux who had not contracted HIV.

“We recognise that the primary motivation for bringing this prosecution must have been the actual transmission of HIV and that the prosecution would have felt it necessary to put the full context before the court.

“However, it would be alarming if the charges brought in this case open the door for future prosecutions in cases where no harm has been caused.”

He said that bringing prosecutions where no harm had been caused would stigmatise people living with HIV and called for a clear statement of the Scottish prosecution policy.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/151651-charities-concerns-over-hiv-conviction/

So what did you think of the issues tackled in this article?

Do you think HIV positive individuals should be held accountable and prosecuted if they knowingly put a partner at risk through unprotected sex? Or do you feel that both parties share the responsibility when you engage in unprotected sex? And also do you think a HIV positive person should still be able to be prosecuted if no transmission has actually taken place?

Drop us a comment and let us know…

Post to