There are no ifs, buts or maybes here!

If you know you are infected with a life threatening transmittable disease and deliberately engage in unsafe practices, that might, can and does result in terminal illness in a deliberately infected partner!

And is there just one possibly infected partner, and if there were, would this excuse for a man reveal it!

Where are a reveal all wikileaks, when they're genuinely needed? Or are they just more of the same, totally without conscience or morals, birds of a feather?

Given the complete absence of any extenuating circumstance! The action must be described as criminal intent, exactly as if you were pointing a loaded gun and playing russian roulette!

And no gray area as might ensue, given bona fide ignorance of your own medical status!
Rhrosty.

These academics really amaze me? As a retired detective sergeant, all that needs to be clearly established by the crown; firstly is the mens rea (criminal intent). In the ZABURONI matter, the foresight of consequences, in other words 'a guilty knowledge'. ZABURONI 'knew' that, by having unprotected sex with his partner, without her knowing that he was HIV positive and over a protracted period of time, there was a distinct possibility it would lead to infecting her with the Aids virus. That clearly establishes his guilty 'knowledge'.

The actus reus (criminal act). Again, it was stated somewhere '...a criminal act alone does not make a person guilty of an offence, unless his mind is also guilty...' - a cardinal principle of English criminal law.

Why then do legal academics and appellant Justices wish to further complicate, confound and thoroughly elucidate, 'proofs' that have stood the test of time. That hitherto, have been successfully prosecuted, and subsequently withstood appeals, I really don't know?

o sung wu, thank you for your comment.

Our article was concerned with offences that require the prosecution to establish that the accused acted with a specific intent (eg. section 317 of the Queensland Criminal Code). For these types of offence, the law has long held that showing that the accused had knowledge or foresight of possible consequences isn't the same as establishing that the accused had an actual intent to cause those consequences. We illustrate this distinction between intent and foresight with the example of the police officer delivering bad news to relatives of a dead person.

Not all offences in Queensland require proof of intent. For instance, grievous bodily harm (GBH) under section 320 of the Code just requires the prosecution to establish that the accused's actions caused GBH to the victim, without a specific mental element having to be established. In fact, the notion of mens rea (guilty mind) isn't a formal part of the criminal law in Queensland (or in other Code-based jurisdictions like Western Australia and Tasmania). It's limited to the criminal law in common law jurisdictions like England, NSW, Victoria etc.

It's important to remember that even if Zaburoni is successful in the High Court he will still be guilty of the lesser offence of GBH under section 320.

Just to clarify - the previous comment was also by me (Andrew Garwood-Gowers) but for some reason it appeared under a different username.

Good evening to you Andrew GARWOOD-GOWERS...

Thank you for qualifying your topic apropos it's precise application to that of the Qld. Criminal Code. I served in NSW which, as you correctly opined, is not a codified State rather relying on the Common Law. I accept both of you were merely describing, both the nuances and the postulatory application, of S.317b of the relevant Criminal Code, and speculating on the soon to be handed down, appellant judgement from the High Court.

For me to engage with either of you any further, with some esoteric contrary argument specifically on 'guilty knowledge' or 'intent per se', would prove to be a folly. Given my age and the fact I've retired, and my knowledge of the law is fading fast? Thank you gentleman, for bothering to address my queries in any event, I do appreciate it.

As an aside, I've always held the view, that the Law should be structured philosophically at least, observing the simplicity of 'Occam's razor'? If that were ever to happen, what would all our hard working lawyers do?

Andrew,

Criminal intent can also be inferred by one's actions. For example a person firing a handgun randomly into an occupied building might kill someone he never met, and while he might claim that he had no intent to kill this person, there is little doubt that he knew that firing the gun into a building had a significant chance of killing someone.

Similarly, someone that has contracted HIV through unprotected sex cannot claim to be ignorant of the consequences of unprotected sex.

I'm surprised at a lot of the comments here, as well as that of the Qld appellate court.
There is simply no intent here (subject to other evidence not being allowed in court for whatever reason).
The accused was either totally irresponsible or afraid of being rejected by his partner if he told her the truth. Appalling behaviour but not equivalent to that of the intention to murder.
The fault may well be with the penalties for criminal negligence.
I like that law they have in New York state, depraved indifference, where presumably you get a good 20 years if found guilty of it.

I'm sorry Edward Carson, but unless the defendant had the IQ of a flea, he would surely know he may well transmit his disease if he had unprotected sex?
So he should be automatically charged with intent to murder, as far as I am concerned.

I'm going to openly admit I didn't read the entire article, but I think I got the jist of it.
I'm deliberately responding whilst not reading the entire thing because I argue the whole mentality of 'intent' in the first instance on this issue.

Intent? Rubbish.
It doesn't matter what his intentions were.
It doesn't even matter whether he did (or even if he hadn't) given his partner AIDS.

The fact he had the disease and engaged in unprotected sex without making his partner aware of it says guilty enough for me to convict with even caring what his intentions may or may not have been.

I would go as far as saying this is a crime that requires the death penalty. And why not?
If that's the sentence he imposed on his foolish and naive girlfriend and maybe her ability to care for her kids (if she had any) then why should he not be given that punishment?
What other punishment can be given to a person who already knows they will probably die anyway from it so they think "who cares?" in consideration towards others.
How else do you provide an adequate way to prevent those that 'don't care' from doing this?

Intent doesn't matter.
He knew he had it and he didn't care.
Why was he even in the country?
Was he born here?
Did he contract it here?
Who's negligence placed the Australian community at risk?
They should get the death penalty too.

I'm always surprised by some appeals, like the one presented to the high court, claiming evidence collected in a sting was unfair for the found guilty and convicted remorseless killer of Daniel Morcombe! And this maggot, replete with the self pity and crocodile tears, expected other folk to play fair?

Similarly this other low life serial offender expects someone to believe there was no intent!

No intent would have at the very least, given the repetition of knowingly attempted cross infection, included the exclusive use of a protective condom!

And just what you'd expect of a partner, who actually cared, or gave a flying french francfurt!
Rhrosty.

TO:- SUSEONLINE; RHROSTY; ARMCHAIR CRITIC; & SHADOW MINISTER...

You understand perhaps, what unadulterated 'crap' the coppers have to silently endure when these highly remunerated silks like to argue inexhaustibly, in the presence of eminent jurists, points of finite interpretation, that in reality are conspicuously evident. I appreciate society must ensure the guilty are punished. Conversely, society must equally ensure that no innocent person is punished, for an offence he didn't commit.

During my years in law-enforcement, I've noticed our criminal laws, (or our entire criminal jurisprudence) have become even more convoluted, and more impenetrably over the years. Surely this situation doesn't augur well, for either a guilty or innocent person?