Interesting decision, particularly the fact it was unanimous.
One important thing to note is that it arises in the criminal context, i.e., the Court has found it's not appropriate to criminalize the conduct referred to. That doesn't mean a "victim" doesn't have a means of redress. They could always bring a civil action seeking compensation for any mental distress they experienced upon learning of their partner's infection.
A colleague of mine was involved a few years ago in the criminal defence of an HIV positive guy who was up on aggravated assault charges. He was privy to a lot of the science underpinning the "low viral load" defence that was used in this case. Basically, although most people and the media in particular are of the view that HIV is deadly and easily transmissible, it's actually quite hard to catch, and made even less so through the use of antiretroviral medications and safe sex practices.
The result seems to me to be that people are responsible for their own sexual health, and if they don't make inquiries of their sexual partners, generally they are stuck with the consequences (absent some civil remedies that may be available).
|