Judge lifts name suppression for HIV man

A man who deliberately infected his wife with his HIV blood has had name suppression lifted by a High Court judge in order to alert other women he may have slept with.

In what she described as a "finely balanced decision", Justice Ailsa Duffy said that the public interest in other women and their sexual partners knowing of the risk they faced overrode the rights of the man's wife to have her medical condition kept secret.

However, the 35-year-old man - who was first detected with the virus when he came to this country in 2004 _ has until next Tuesday for him, or more probably his now estranged wife, to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The man was jailed for eight years and four months recently after admitting wilfully infecting the 33-year-old woman with the disease by pricking her with a sewing needle laced with his contaminated blood while she slept.

On one occasion the woman also caught him handling a syringe full of blood.

Apparently his motive was for his wife, who refused to have sex with him for fear of catching the disease, to resume sexual relations with him.

Last December in the High Court at Auckland Justice Duffy imposed temporary suppression of the man's name to protect the privacy of the woman.

The judge said in her just-released judgment that publication of the man's name would likely lead to people learning that his wife had HIV.

Given the "stigma'' attached to HIV, she said a thorough examination of the name suppression had been warranted.

Auckland barrister Lester Cordwell was appointed amicus curiae (friend of the court) to argue the woman's case.

Justice Duffy said that the woman's affidavit provided compelling evidence of the fear she had of public disclosure of her condition and the impact on her and her two children.

Her "strong desire'' was for the suppression of any information leading to her identification.

Equally strongly, the Crown, represented by Ross Burns, opposed permanent name suppression.

In addition to the presumption of open justice, the Crown maintained that there was a particular public interest in this case.

"There is uncontested evidence that Mr X has engaged in sexual relations with other women,'' Justice Duffy said.

"The Crown is concerned that there is nothing which reliably shows Mr X to have advised those women of his HIV status, or to have practised safe sexual relations with them.

"Consequently, their health and safety is at risk. Furthermore, the health and safety of any of their existing or potential sexual partners is also at risk.

"For this reason alone, the Crown says that this is a case that warrants public identification of Mr X,'' the judge said.

She said it was accepted that the sole reason for name suppression would be to spare the woman and her children.

If she had been infected with HIV by sexual violation, she would have had automatic name suppression and there was no exemption if such sexual offending was accompanied by the potential spread of a sexually transmittable disease.

Justice Duffy said that if there had been no concern about other members of the public being at risk, she would have considered that the privacy interests of the wife and children outweighed publication.

"Neither she nor her children should have to endure information about her medical condition entering the public domain.''

However, the judge said there was a presumption of open justice.

"This is strengthened when suppression of information poses a risk to public safety.

"In such circumstances, the combination of the presumption of open justice, and the potential risk of other members of the community being infected with HIV as a result of Mr X's conduct must outweigh the privacy interests of the victim and her children.''