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?