<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=5339
95&in_page_id=1770>:

----- Begin Quote -----

Anyone deliberately infecting a sexual partner with HIV through a
one-off encounter should not be charged with a crime, prosecutors
ruled yesterday.

A single sexual incident will not count as evidence that they have
deliberately tried to infect their partner with the virus, the Crown
Prosecution Service said.

Cases of intentional or reckless transmission of sexual infection will
only be brought against those who have infected a series of partners,
or have infected one partner during a period of regular risky sex.

The rules were set out to clarify the law on reckless infection and to
guide prosecutors on how to deal with a crime that can lead to a life
sentence for those convicted.

They also said that those accused of reckless HIV infection are
themselves "victims", because they suffer from a devastating
condition.

Eleven defendants have been taken to court in England for transmission
of the Aids virus.

Ten of the cases ended in a conviction. Defendants are charged with
causing grievous bodily harm under the 1861 Offences Against the
Person Act.

The first person to be jailed for infecting partners was given eight
years in 2003 for infecting two women.

The sentence on Mohammed Dica, a married father-of-three, was cut to
four and a half years after a re-trial found that he had deliberately
infected only one woman.

The guidance, set out in a CPS policy document, said it would be
necessary to prove a "sustained course of conduct" in order to find a
defendant guilty - in other words a single sexual encounter does not
amount to a crime.

"It will be highly unlikely that the prosecution will be able to
demonstrate the required degree of recklessness in factual
circumstances other than a sustained course of conduct during which
the defendant ignores current scientific advice regarding the need for
and the use of safeguards, thereby increasing the risk of infection to
an unacceptable level," it said.

The document also said: "We appreciate too that those who are
defendants in these cases may be seen as victims themselves, as they
also have the infection that they are alleged to have transmitted to
another person."

The statement set out a series of other reasons for prosecutors to be
cautious before bringing charges.

Those newly told that they have an infection could be in a state of
shock or might not have fully understood the diagnosis.

Prosecutors were told that someone who spread a sexual infection could
also have a defence to a charge if the victim knew of their infected
status.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said:
"Although these types of cases are rare, we are publishing this
statement because we recognise the importance of consistent
decision-making. We hope that it provides clarity."

Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, warned that the new rules
would encourage risky behaviour among those with HIV.

"Someone who has sex in those circumstances is subjecting the other
person to a potentially deadly illness and to suffering over a long
period of time," he added.

"These rules are too lenient, and they will lead people to think they
will not be prosecuted."

----- End Quote -----