The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated sexual assault arising from his failure to disclose his HIV-positive status before engaging in unprotected anal intercourse with two complainants.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury to acquit if they found the complainants were reckless or prepared to assume the risks of unprotected sex.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a complainant's past risky sexual behaviour does not negate an accused's legal duty to disclose a significant risk of serious bodily harm.
The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge's failure to give a Vetrovec warning, his jury instructions on the evidence, or his failure to give a limiting instruction regarding the appellant's text messages.
