Have you seen this man? His name’s Mark James and he’s the first Brit in history to be found guilty of knowingly infecting someone with HIV. Had he shown up to court, James would have been sentenced to 40 months in prison. Unfortunately, James decided to take his show on the road and has been missing ever since.
At the time, James had been in a long-term relationship, but failed to disclose the fact that he contracted HIV in 2004. (Nice, huh?) His lover soon tested positive and went to the police. Inspector Detective Mark Sunman says:
This crime was carried out when he was in a long-term relationship – but the longer that he is out there, the more likely it is that he will start another relationship. Does he present a risk to the public? The answer is yes.
While it’s unlikely James has made it over here to The States, all you international folk should keep an eye out, because more than a few people want to have some words with him.
Edwin J Bernard
As a health educator/journalist who has followed the criminalisation of HIV transmission in the UK, I’d like to point out a major error with your ‘story’. Mark James was the eighth person in England and Wales to be convicted of ‘reckless’ HIV transmission, after he pleaded guilty. There is no crime of ‘knowingly’ infecting someone with HIV in England and Wales.
He was the first openly gay man to be convicted of this “crime.” He pleaded guilty because his inept lawyer recommeded he do so, after the Crown Prosecution Service said they had scientific evidence proving that James infected his ex-partner. However, this evidence was flawed, and a similar case which went to court a few months later (because the defendant had a smarter lawyer) led to a ‘not guilty’ verdict, because the Judge realised that scientific evidence is not enough to convict on. See: http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/9770EEA6-020F-440A-9224-D7BAD7784A69.asp
Mark James is not a danger to society, as the police suggest. He is the victim of an inept and flawed legal system. Between pleading guilty and his disappearance, he discovered how inept his lawyer had been, changed lawyers and tried to change his plea but the Judge would not allow this. Maybe others would also run – or take their own lives, which I fear is another possibility – in this situation?
J Cunningham
Mark James is a considerable risk to society. After violently assaulting his partner for the last time, his partner went to the Police and James was arrested for assault, threats to kill. James went on the run at this time. This was some 9 months before HIV even came into the frame. After protracted investigations, James finally gave himself up, was interviewed and, only then, a charge of GBH was brought against him for having unlawfully and maliciously infecting his partner with the HIV virus. James’ partner did not go to the Police re his HIV infection. The Police investigated James re HIV after he told his partner that if the HIV he gave him didnt kill him, he was going to kill him now. James was known to be very violent and his partner was regularly abused by him. James’ partner had been to the Police regarding his assaults previously. It is simply not true that James’ lawyers were found by him or by the Judge to be inept. This case was brought to the attention of the Police and the CPS in the context of unimaginable Domestic Violence. Broken Rainbow, the organisation that supports Victims of Domestic abuse in the LGBT community, have already identified some LGBT specific abuse e.g. maliciously outing a partner or maliciously infecting their partner.
Finally, the day after James’ partner daignosed +ve , James attended hospital with his partner where he went through the charade of testing for HIV, accessing the support of nurses, a health adviser, a consultant, a counsellor etc etc. James did this when he had already tested positive at another testing centre. James did not tell his partner that he had tested positive.
James’ partner was admitted to hospital, while critically ill, the previous week. His partner was found to be suffering from an acute sero conversion illness. James’ partner was to ill to speak for himself and James was answering the clinician’s questions upon his admission on his partners behalf. The medical staff asked if they could undertake an HIV test on his partner. James said that there was no need as both men had tested negative earlier that year. Police investigations found that James was lying to staff at that time. His partner had indeed tested negative. James had lied to his partner and the staff trying to save his partners life. How sick is that?
James T Robinson
How wonderfully misled and deluded you are Mr Bernard. Mark James was arrested for assault, threats to kill and GBH. Mark James is very very violent and a dangerous man. You clearly have no knowledge of the events that brought about this trial. I note that you claim to be a journalist. Well known journalists rarely base their work on the facts. Police Officer Det Sgt Mike Sunman was asked when interviewed if Mark James was a danger to society. He replied YES……. He did not state that Mark James was likely to infect anyone else. Those are the facts Mr Bernard. If you have met Mark James and you have seen him angry: stand clear.
Rob Robertson
Just Googled Edwin J Bernard – a JOURNALIST??? another misleading statement!!!!!!