Moving from theory to practice, by Edwin J Bernard

In June, the final of three seminars entitled, HIV/AIDS and Law: Theory, Practice and Policy, took place at Keele University. The seminars were organised by Dr Matthew Weait, lecturer in law at Keele University, in collaboration with the African HIV Policy Network (AHPN), Birkbeck College and George House Trust (GHT), and was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

The seminars brought together academics, legal and medical practitioners, people living with HIV and HIV charities in order to explore the ways in which the law is having an impact on people living with HIV. This includes recent calls for mandatory HIV-testing of immigrants; lack of access to treatment, dispersal and deportation of many so-called asylum seekers; and HIV and sex education in schools.

Although the series examined all these issues, the criminalisation of HIV transmission was the galvanising force behind the seminars.

Legal networking

It's been a long time since the major HIV charities all came together to work towards a common goal. Representatives of AHPN, GHT, HIV Scotland, the National AIDS Trust (NAT), Positively Women, Terrence Higgins Trust (THT), the UK Coalition of People Living with HIV and AIDS (UKC), and NAM all agreed that there had been a lack of "joined-up thinking" in their response to criminalisation and other pressing legal issues, and that this needed to be rectified.

"We needed to come together to identify ways in which links can be established to ensure that the kind of lack of communication that's happened in the past doesn't happen again," says Dr Weait, who has been actively involved in providing legal research support to the HIV voluntary sector for the last decade. "The university setting provided a neutral space where people could speak freely without being constrained by other people's budgets or agendas."

One of the most tangible outcomes was strong support for the development of a UK HIV/AIDS Legal Network. "This would operate as a central point of communication for all of these issues and bring together best practice," explains Dr Weait, "where trusted knowledge and legal expertise could be shared between everyone in the HIV sector. Funding it might be difficult, though, because some people might see it as funding the defence of 'wicked people'."

The real harm of criminalisation

The criminalisation of HIV transmission does evoke some difficult ethical and moral issues. "I think it's really important to recognise the long term impact of these prosecutions, whatever one's ethical or moral stance," argues Dr Weait. " Criminal trials, whatever their other effects, affirm in the public and popular imagination that HIV-positive people can only be understood as vectors of onwards transmission."

He points to criminalisation's other possible harms. "Does it mean that people are so afraid of disclosing their status to sexual partners, because of the kind of coverage that people with HIV get in the press as a result of the prosecution, that they're not going to disclose despite the consequences? Does it mean not telling the truth about a sexual history to an HIV or GU clinician, which is critical to contact tracing. Will it make people think twice about voluntary HIV testing, or being honest about the results of that test? If that's the case then we've lost a significant battle in the war against HIV."

Arrest me/defend me

The June seminar took place the weekend after Sarah Porter was imprisoned for 'reckless' HIV transmission. Her case appeared to break worrying new ground. Brixton police had launched a manpower-intensive inquiry to actively find her past sexual partners, when the only activity reported to them was unprotected sex by an HIV-positive person, which is not in itself a crime. Since then, two different police forces in the Midlands have gone one step further and used the local press to 'fish' for the sexual partners of people they are currently investigating for 'reckless' transmission.

It's hardly surprising that there was a renewed call for individual activism at the seminar. One suggestion was to stand outside the courtroom wherever a criminalisation trial is being held, holding a two-sided placard that reads: 'Arrest me' and 'Defend me', to make the point that most HIV-positive people have been 'victims', and are potentially 'perpetrators', of HIV transmission.

"One of the things that has prevented that kind of activism from happening since the advent of potent anti-HIV therapy in developed countries is that HIV isn't seen as a crisis anymore," notes Dr Weait. "With the exception of these criminalisation cases, HIV is off the national public agenda."

Although placard waving might not suit everyone, Dr Weait has other suggestions as to how we could empower ourselves when it comes to HIV and the law.

"What is most important is that you pursue the form of political engagement that suits you," he says. "That could be trying to stop the police from expressing their opinion about criminalisation cases, which seems to me to be unethical, by complaining to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

"It could be trying to change the way the media covers only the negative aspects of HIV-positive life, by raising the issue in opinion-making newspapers. And, perhaps, if you are confident in your diagnosis, and feel able to disclose your status, you could, for example, talk about the importance of sex education in schools, or of condom provision in prisons.

"My hope is that HIV-positive people will realise that the law isn't necessarily something to be afraid of; that the law isn't a language that only other people can speak; and that it is possible to engage with the law directly and in an informed way to achieve real change."

Further information

Presentations from the seminar series are available for download at the UK Law and HIV/AIDS Project: www.keele.ac.uk/research/lpj/Law_HIV-AIDSProject/index.htm