Witness told in court he has HIV

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-25 01:43pm

Witness told in court he has HIV

Jenny Booth
Tuesday May 25, 2004
The Guardian

Campaigners have condemned as "appalling" a mistake by prosecutors which led to a man discovering that he had HIV as he stood in the witness box during a case at a court in Leicester.
Without telling the witness, the Crown Prosecution Service had ordered police to hand over a sample of his blood to defence lawyers who had it tested for HIV without his knowledge or consent. The result was circulated to the judge and other lawyers in the case.

When a defence barrister questioned the man about his HIV status and it became clear he was unaware he had the virus, there was stunned silence in the court. Neither the man nor the court case he was involved in can be identified for legal reasons.

The Terrence Higgins Trust, one of the biggest Aids charities in the UK, said the blunder was appalling. "To be tested for HIV without your consent is absolutely wrong," it said. "To hear the results in court is just appalling. To find out you have a life-threatening disease and didn't even know you were being tested is appalling. It goes against all your rights of confidentiality."

The revelation came after the man denied any knowledge of having the virus. He said: "I don't know. I haven't been diagnosed. I've never been tested."

He was told that a sample of his blood had tested positive at a laboratory earlier this year.

It later emerged that the sample of his blood had been taken by the police for DNA testing in September following his arrest on suspicion of an offence for which he was later released without charge.

In court, the judge said the sample should have been destroyed. Instead it had been kept and the HIV test had been carried out without his knowledge. The judge called for an inquiry and called for the man to be given immediate counselling.

Janet Meeks, head of the CPS trials unit in Leicester, said: "The most important duty of the CPS is to ensure there's full ... disclosure of evidence to the defence. It is regrettable that ... this information came into the public domain."

This is one of the reasons I oppose government plans to give themselves more power to take samples from people under caution and so forth, we simply can’t trust the government to follow its own rules and not misuse the information.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-25 02:08pm

while i find it heartless and wrong that he learned of that staus in court, i'm not sure how i feel about the identity protection laws. On the one hand this is a fatal disease with no cure. People should have access to information so that they know that a potential sexual encounter could kill them. On the other hand they have a right to privacy. But then there is the whole business of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-05-25 02:12pm

Ouch.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-05-25 02:14pm

I have a seriosu issue with people who have a problem with being tested for life threatening and especially contagious life threatening diseases or illnesses. When does the line at general public health and safety and your privacy end. Frankly I would rather know (and have been tested several times in my life)

It should be a routine thing as rotuine as getting your blood pressure checked. It's these silly notions that somehow your privacy is more important than making sure the plague of this century doesn't spread any further that make me shake my head.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-25 02:15pm

HIV has a big social stigma attached to it, that's likely why this case is out in the open since I doubt this is the first of such incidents.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-05-25 02:17pm

eh. the story is from the guardian. . .isn't that one of the more unreliable papers in the UK?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-25 02:19pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:while i find it heartless and wrong that he learned of that staus in court, i'm not sure how i feel about the identity protection laws. On the one hand this is a fatal disease with no cure. People should have access to information so that they know that a potential sexual encounter could kill them. On the other hand they have a right to privacy. But then there is the whole business of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one.

To me this case isn’t really about HIV (that just makes it more shocking) but the fact that the police held onto a blood sample they should have destroyed (long with the data they got from it) and gave a sample of this innocent mans blood to the defence who don’t even seem to have been aware of data protection rules.

This is why I’d always do everything possible not to give any kind of sample to the police because I simply do not believe that they’ll destroy the stuff like they should when I’m proven innocent.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-25 02:21pm

Darth_Zod wrote:eh. the story is from the guardian. . .isn't that one of the more unreliable papers in the UK?

Just incase you're not joking the Guardian is one of the most reliable papers in the UK and this story has been all over the BBC news as well

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-25 02:24pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:eh. the story is from the guardian. . .isn't that one of the more unreliable papers in the UK?
Just incase you're not joking the Guardian is one of the most reliable papers in the UK and this story has been all over the BBC news as well

I've found the Guardian to be the least reliable of the broadsheets.

Anyone remember that "Top secret Pentagon document" they got their hands on a few months ago?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-05-25 02:26pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:eh. the story is from the guardian. . .isn't that one of the more unreliable papers in the UK?
Just incase you're not joking the Guardian is one of the most reliable papers in the UK and this story has been all over the BBC news as well

reliable in the same way that The Onion is america's finest news source?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-25 02:29pm

Darth_Zod wrote:eh. the story is from the guardian. . .isn't that one of the more unreliable papers in the UK?

This is The Guardian, not the bloody Sun. It may be controversial for being so left, but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-25 02:31pm

BBC News has the story and I saw it come up last night on their site. Can't debate it's validity now.

Tatterdemalion · Post by **Tatterdemalion** » 2004-05-25 04:38pm

Sharp-kun wrote: I've found the Guardian to be the least reliable of the broadsheets.

Anyone remember that "Top secret Pentagon document" they got their hands on a few months ago?

That was the Observer wasn't it?

Note: the Observer is funded by the same company/trust so technically they're owned by the same people, however the Observer is the more unreliable of the two, for some reason sunday papers don't seem to take their job seriously enough)

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2004-05-25 05:06pm

Plekhanov wrote: To me this case isn’t really about HIV (that just makes it more shocking) but the fact that the police held onto a blood sample they should have destroyed (long with the data they got from it) and gave a sample of this innocent mans blood to the defence who don’t even seem to have been aware of data protection rules.

This is why I’d always do everything possible not to give any kind of sample to the police because I simply do not believe that they’ll destroy the stuff like they should when I’m proven innocent.

Agreed. This is (yet more) compelling and undeniable evidence that the UK police are not exactly 100% trustworthy.

And, just for reference, it's really the Manchester Guardian

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-25 05:08pm

The Third Man wrote: Agreed. This is (yet more) compelling and undeniable evidence that the UK police are not exactly 100% trustworthy.

Probably not any more than any other force.

I'm wondering why they held onto it though, maybe after all the criticisim over Huntley they thought they should, regardless of what they were supposed to do?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-05-25 09:27pm

Honestly, I think that if anyone has blood taken it should be tested and the results delivered to the person. Confidentiality is one thing, but c'mon, we're talking about someones life, not their privacy. Whether some doctor knows you've got a disease or not without your consent is irrelevant, and quite trivial. What could a doctors knowledge do? Raise your insurance premiums while savnig your life? I think that in a society where people don't check themselves, this shouldn't be a problem.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-05-25 10:03pm

That the defence lawyer told the court and the audience (or whatever they're called): learn some tact, you motherfucker.

That he tested the blood sample without consent: um, big whoop. What else are you going to do with a blood sample?

That the witness didn't know he had a contagious disease than can be transmitted: appalling.

I feel sorry for him, and the means to this end is just inconceivable, yet the fact is he had a contagious disease and didn't know about it. If the Defence Lawyer had asked to bring this sensitive information to the witness' attention in a closed session or something, then I don't see what could be so appalling. It would have been worse if the witness was left to his ignorance. That I would have found to be extremely atrocious.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-05-25 11:23pm

Darth_Zod wrote:eh. the story is from the guardian. . .isn't that one of the more unreliable papers in the UK?

They are not very reliable. However in this case I think they are correct.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Witness told in court he has HIV

Witness told in court he has HIV

Re: Witness told in court he has HIV