Can Someone be Charged For Spreading an STI?

It’s a conversation no-one wants to have with a prospective partner – but did you know that failing to disclose a sexually transmitted infection (STI) could land you in serious trouble with the law?

What Does the Law Say?

In New South Wales, section 79 of the Public Health Act 2010 says that a person may be charged with an offence if they have sexual intercourse with another person without informing them of the risk of contracting an STI. The offence comes with a maximum penalty of $5,500.

However, a person will not be guilty if they have disclosed the risk to their prospective partner who has voluntarily accepted the risk.

People can also face severe penalties under the Crimes Act where they transmit serious STIs.

Section 33 of that Act states that a person who causes grievous bodily harm with intent to another person faces a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. Where they do so recklessly, the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

‘Grievous bodily harm’ includes any permanent or serious disfiguring of a person. And although there is no list of what else amounts to grievous bodily harm”, the courts have found that the term means “really serious harm” and can include broken bones, damage to internal organs and serious psychological or physical illness – including STIs.

Man Charged With GBH for Transmitting Herpes

A UK man was recently charged with causing grievous bodily harm after he passed genital herpes on to his partner.

There is no known cure for genital herpes, which can cause outbreaks of painful genital sores throughout a person’s life, as well as suppressed immune functions. The symptoms can, however, be treated by daily medications.

28-year-old David Golding received a 14-month prison sentence for transmitting the infection, which he claimed was caught from a previous partner.

The sentencing judge was scathing of Golding’s conduct, finding that they ‘amounted to a betrayal,’ and that the infection ‘is at least or more serious than an injury leaving a scar because it carries continued recurrence, extreme discomfort and consequences for relationships which she will have in the future.’

The Wider Consequences of Criminalising the Transmission of STIs

Lawmakers have expressed the view that existing laws effectively encourage people who carry STIs to disclose the risk to their partners for fear of being penalised.

And while many agree with the judge’s opinion of Mr Golding’s, others, including the National Aids Trust, have expressed the view that criminalising the transmission of STIs could further stigmatise already vulnerable members of the community, including HIV sufferers.

They have suggested that the ‘knowledge’ requirement for STI offences may actually deter people from being tested in the first place; because they will only be guilty if they know about their infection.

Others believe that convicting people of ‘less serious’ STIs such as genital herpes will further stigmatise sufferers, making it harder for them to get jobs and advance themselves in the future.

But those voices seem to be in the minority, and the people behind them may not have been on the receiving end of an STI from a partner.

previous post: Do Bouncers Need Better Training?

next post: Should Police and Media be Charged for Dangerous Leaks?

Author Image

About Ugur Nedim

Ugur Nedim is an Accredited Specialist Criminal Lawyer and Principal at Sydney Criminal Lawyers, Sydney's leading firm of criminal and traffic defence lawyers.
  • (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>