ShareThisBy MARINA JIMENEZ and LISA PRIEST
Toronto Globe and Mail
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Legal history is being made in an Ontario courtroom this week with the trial of the first Canadian ever to be charged with first-degree murder in an HIV-infection case.
Johnson Aziga, a 50-year-old research analyst with the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General, is accused of killing two of his sexual partners by deliberately infecting them with the virus that causes AIDS, and endangering the lives of 11 other women with whom he had unsafe sex.
He is just one of 45 people in Canada who have faced criminal charges for transmitting the human immunodeficiency virus or exposing lovers to it in the past 18 years, according to a Globe and Mail investigation. And these are just the reported cases.
The growing number of cases raises questions about how to protect the public from those who intentionally pass on HIV.
While some AIDS activists oppose criminalizing HIV, saying it dissuades people from getting tested, the courts have made it clear: no person can freely consent to sex with someone who hasn't disclosed their HIV status. "In the last two to three years, we've seen a significant increase in the numbers of cases brought forward," said Richard Elliott, deputy director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. "We've had a mini-explosion of cases." He estimates 40 to 50 since 1989.
Some of the cases involve people who were under public health orders to disclose their HIV status to sexual partners and to use condoms. Although this is not the case with Aziga, it was with Trevis Smith, a former Saskatchewan Roughriders linebacker sentenced this year to 5 1/2 years for deliberately exposing two women to HIV.
It was also the case with Vincent Walkem, whose good looks and charm belied his dangerous ways. It took the efforts of three women, one public health order and a renowned AIDS physician before he was charged in August of 2004 with deliberately exposing people to HIV. "There is a fine line between protecting people's privacy, and protecting people from each other," says Stephanie, Walkem's former girlfriend.
Stephanie, whose real identity is protected by a court order, met Walkem one summer night in 2002 at a birthday party in a Toronto bar. At 26, he was eight years her senior and bore a passing resemblance to Hollywood film star Colin Farrell. "He said he'd been tested (for HIV) and was fine," she said. "So we didn't use condoms."
One day, a few months into their relationship, while Stephanie was waiting for Walkem to finish a shift at a Toronto clothing store, a co-worker approached her: "Did you know he's HIV-positive?" she said. Stephanie said she was "totally shattered and stunned." He later denied knowing he was infected. But there were contradictions in his timeline of events. There was the medication in his bathroom, with the labels ripped off. And his intricate knowledge of a disease he supposedly didn't know he had.
Stephanie found out that she too was infected. She went to see Dr. Philip Berger, chief of the department of family and community medicine at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, who has treated patients of acquired immune deficiency syndrome for more than two decades.
Berger shared Stephanie's suspicion that Walkem had lied with Bruce Clark of Toronto Public Health on Dec. 12, 2002. In January, 2003, Stephanie also called Clark, and that May, she went to police.
Much later, Stephanie learned that Walkem tested positive for HIV in December, 2001 _ at least six months before they met. In February, 2002, according to court records, public health nurses told Walkem he must disclose his status to his sexual partners and avoid unprotected sex.
That was around the time Jessica Whitbread, his girlfriend before Stephanie, told public health authorities in Toronto her concern that Walkem was failing to disclose his HIV status to prospective sexual partners.
. Whitbread said in an interview that when she met Walkem in January, 2001, at a Toronto bar, he claimed he was "clean." However, he later told her he had the virus _ and she then learned he had infected her. "I worried he wasn't disclosing his HIV status to his partners," recalled Whitbread, 26.
In February, 2003, public health issued an order that Walkem not engage in sexual activity without informing his partner of his condition and without wearing a latex condom.
Yet, when Stephanie went to police three months later, they told her they couldn't lay any charges because it wasn't clear when Walkem became infected.
In the spring of 2004, Stephanie discovered that Walkem had started dating yet another woman, Jennifer (who cannot be identified under a court order), a 28-year-old acquaintance of hers.
Unlike Stephanie and Whitbread, Jennifer turned out to be HIV-negative.
In August, 2004, police arrested Walkem at the clothing store, and released his photo to the public. They received a dozen phone calls from past girlfriends, police said. Among them were several women who said Walkem had exposed them to HIV, but who declined to be part of the trial.
Walkem, who was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault endangering life, pleaded guilty and was sentenced this year to four years and eight months in prison. Justice Arthur Gans of the Ontario Supreme Court called his actions "irresponsible, callous, cavalier, outrageous ... and startlingly stupid."
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
Wow - Completely inaccurate information.
Once again, the "press" has totally messed up the facts. Vincent did have unprotected sex with ONE girl while he was aware of his status, yes, although he tried to be what he thought was "safe"(by not ejaculating), he was obviously mistaken that such precautions are actually effective(agreed, a pretty stupid theory to begin with). Jessica Whitbread was nothing more than a jealous ex-girlfriend that he was NO longer dating, but she would visit and they would still be intimate(Vincent had ZERO knowledge of his health status at that point). He did meet "Stephanie"(lol) at a BAR, but he had no idea she was 18 as she lied for much of the relationship about several facts(like the fact that she was doing cocaine and sleeping with other guys for instance - more information that was revealed in the courtroom but never made it into the papers oddly - hmm). The third girl, a co-worker of his, he only slept with once or twice and it was stated that all times were protected... but apparently the media just prints whatever sounds more heinous, or what will sell more papers... or basically whatever the hell they feel like printing.
There's a reason Vincent only spent just over a year in a low security camp(more like a vacation i heard). It's because this case was NOT as bad as the press made it out to be, and neither is Vincent. He's a good person who made a stupid, terrible mistake. It's just too bad the crown had the judge and the media bought and paid for... then we might have actually heard the TRUE story.
There, now you finally have the facts.