Accused in HIV disclosure case has bail yanked by Superior Court
News
Neil McKinnon / Ottawa / Friday, July 23, 2010
Share |

A 29-year-old Ottawa HIV-positive man accused of failing to disclose his health status had his bail overturned yesterday, the Ottawa Citizen reports.

Crown prosecutors challenged Justice of the Peace Herb Kreling's decision to release the accused on a $10,000 bond. After he was given bail of $5,000 and strict release conditions, including not having access to a computer, internet or cell phone, and living with his mother an hour outside of Ottawa, he remained in custody. A few days later, he was transported to a Milton jail to face a Waterloo arrest warrant for similar charges.

The accused was charged in May. There are now a total of six complainants alleging the accused did not tell them his health status before having unprotected sex.

Reasons overturning the accused’s bail are covered by a publication ban.

The accused has been behind bars since he was arrested on May 6.

"Bail was not revoked, which would have meant he breached his conditions in some way," says Delinda Hayton. "The matter went to a bail review which is similar to an appeal. The judge at that hearing determined that [the accused] should be detained in custody.."




Share |


Reader Comments


 
presumed innocent
Well it would only seem appropriate that this guys lawyer appeal that ruling. Considering that his face, name, age and vital identifying stats have been all over the main stream media, how can any justice rule that he still posses a hazard. Lets be clear it's not like he pull a gun on anyone.
martin, London Ontario
07/28/10 12:44 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
It takes two
I have been following the news stories about incarcerating someone who was positive and who had sex without disclosing and I am disappointed but not surprised at his treatment. I think it takes two to spread HIV and that both partners are responsible to prevent HIV which includes not trusting that a new acquaintance is going to tell you the truth. To consider the mere asking of whether one's partner is positive or not an absolution of responsibility seems to me to be extraordinarily naive. What ever happened to the slogan "always assume they are positive until you definitely know that they aren't"? I find it draconian to hold a positive person criminally guilty just for not disclosing. This kind of anti-sex, arbitrary, punitive law enforcement behaviour will only result in people not getting tested and in people thinking that when they ask if their partner is HIV positive and the partner says "no" then that they must be telling the truth because they must know the ludicrously heavy arm of the law will come crashing down on them should they lie - but not everyone knows the law and not everyone thinks they will get caught and not everyone cares and sometimes people are drunk or high. Everyone is responsible for their health - not just the positive person - assume everyone is positive until you definitely know otherwise and to the law enforcement community please get your heads out of the early 80's and learn that sex is not a sin. Just in case anyone is wondering, no I'm not positive, I'm negative, and I still think the behaviour of the legal community regarding HIV non-disclosure to be highly disappointing and regressive but then I know to have safe sex and always assume my partner is postive until I know for sure that he is not.
Mike J., Ottawa ON
08/05/10 7:47 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.