HIV rape jury told to ignore sympathy and morals

This article contains details some people may find distressing

Jurors in the trial of a man accused of deliberately infecting seven men with HIV have been told they must not get sidetracked by sympathy or moral concerns.

Prosecutors say Adam Hall had sex with younger men he met online or at bars in Newcastle, but did not tell them he was HIV positive, did not use protection and did not take the drugs he should have to make him non-infectious.

Hall, 43 and from Washington, denies raping five men and seven counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, claiming instead he is the victim of a conspiracy.

Outlining the law and both sides' arguments to the 12 jurors, Judge Edward Bindloss said they had to reach their verdicts based only on the evidence.

The court has heard Hall was diagnosed with HIV in August 2010 for which he was prescribed medication to keep the virus at undetectable, or non-infectious, levels.

Prosecutors said Hall liked to be "dominant" sexually and wanted to pass the illness on.

Over seven days in the witness box, Hall said he told sexual partners of his diagnosis, took precautions to prevent it spreading and one of his accusers said they wanted to have sex with someone who was HIV positive.

He also said there was a conspiracy against him but he had "no idea" why.

After apologising to jurors for delays in the trial, which began in November, and ahead of the prosecution and defence giving their closing speeches, Judge Bindloss gave them his legal directions.

He said it was a "court of law, not of morals", adding jurors were not there to "judge the moral character" of Hall, the complainants or witnesses "with regard sexual behaviour or drug use".

The judge said they should not get "derailed" by moral discussions and neither should they be "sidetracked" by "emotion, sympathy or bias".

"Seven of the complainants have been infected with HIV, a situation that will inevitably invite sympathy, but you must reach your decision in a cool, fair and objective way," the judge said.

Outlining the law on inflicting grievous bodily harm, he said prosecutors would have to make the jurors "sure" of three elements for them to find Hall guilty.

They were that Hall was the source of the men's HIV, getting HIV was tantamount to really serious bodily harm and Hall had intended to infect the complainants - in short, causation, harm and intention.

On causation, the prosecution case was that Hall was the source with the men's other sexual partners ruled out, for example because they did not have HIV or had HIV but were undetectable or had a "dissimilar'" strain, the judge said.

The defence would argue some of the complainants had sex with other men who had not been identified and therefore could not be excluded as sources, the judge said.

On harm, the judge said prosecutors would say HIV did equate to really serious bodily harm as it was a condition that reduced life expectancy, increased risk of other diseases, required regular medication which could have side effects and affected a person's family or social life.

Hall's side would say HIV "falls short" of really serious harm as modern drugs made it asymptomatic, the virus could be controlled and "never develop into anything serious" and the men were "young so life expectancy risks may have been improved by the time they reach old age," the court heard.

On intention, Judge Bindloss said prosecutors would say Hall knew he was a high risk of transmitting HIV but still had unprotected sex with men without informing them of his condition.

Prosecutors would also allege he did not take his regular medication, missed six-monthly check ups, knew he had a high viral load, lied to partners about being "clean", chose "young men new to the gay scene" and did not advise them after intercourse to take preventative medication, the court heard.

The defence would say Hall did take his medication and attended his appointments, was not told by medics he had a high viral load and did tell sexual partners of his HIV status before intercourse, the judge said.

Hall would also say it was "well known in the community" that he was HIV positive so the men would have known even if he had not told them directly, the court heard.

"The prosecution case is these men were all in the dark, the defence case is they all knew he had HIV and went on to have sex with him knowing the risk," the judge said.

In relation to the rape charges, jurors would have to be sure Hall did not "genuinely believe" the complainant was consenting to sex.

The trial continues.

• If you have been affected by any of the issues in this article, help can be found at BBC Action Line

Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.