FabGuys.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

The best place to meet real guys.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

HIV Newcastle

Jump to newest
 

By *norguy OP   Man
2 weeks ago

W Norfolk/N Cambs

A man accused of deliberately infecting seven men with HIV has told jurors he disclosed his medical status to partners before having sex.

Prosecutors claim 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 ra ping five men and seven counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.

When asked about one of the complainants, he told Newcastle Crown Court the man seemed unbothered when Hall told him he was HIV positive.

The jury has heard Hall was diagnosed with HIV in August 2010.

He previously told the court he had no intention to cause harm or deliberately pass on the disease.

On the third day of giving evidence, Hall was asked about the fourth and fifth complainants, both of whom allege ra pe and the infliction of grievous bodily harm with intent.

In relation to the fourth man, Hall's barrister Craig Hassall KC said it was being suggested by prosecutors that Hall had intended to "deliberately transmit HIV" to the man and "cause really serious harm".

When asked how he would respond to those allegations, Hall replied: "Absolutely not."

'Taking medication'

Hall was asked questions about the fifth man, whom he met on an online dating site and who is he also accused of supplying GHB, a Class B drug, too.

Hall said the purpose of their meeting was to have sex and they took drugs together before engaging in activity, with Hall taking crystal meth and the other man consuming crystal meth and GHB.

He said he believed the other man, who was younger than him, had previously used drugs and had an issue with them before they met.

Hall said he thought he got on "very well" with the man and told him about issues in his life, including a brain injury caused by a car accident in 2021 and his HIV status.

"When did you tell him about the HIV?" Mr Hassall asked.

Hall replied: "Pretty much straightaway, before any sexual contact."

Hall, who the court has heard was a "top" meaning he gave anal sex rather than receiving it, was then asked what discussions he and the man had about how to have sex, for example if any protection should be used.

"He didn't seem that bothered," Hall said, adding the man claimed he was taking preventative medication already.

"I told him I was undetectable [non-infectious] and on meds," Hall added.

The trial, which began in November, continues.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *3versMan
2 weeks ago

glasgow

And the message is - look after your own sexual health

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *addylad30Man
2 weeks ago

Killarney


"And the message is - look after your own sexual health"

Yes agree

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ruditus gentMan
2 weeks ago

Caistor or thereabouts. Or hereabouts

And how many did those seven men unknowingly go and infect? And how many got infected after that?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LASGOW 60s GUYMan
2 weeks ago

Glasgow

Trust no-one but yourself. Get tested as often as they will test you

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erscumdumpMan
2 weeks ago

Watford

Ive just be reading about this case and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. From what ive seen so far the allegations of r*pe are questionable. If he wanted to give people hiv theres far easier ways than that, as some would willingly offer to be infected. Someone being r*ped doesn't tend to go to the loo several times during it. Surely there would need to be evidence of some kind of struggle? The charge of deliberately infecting someone and calling it gbh is a stretch, and probably unproveable. I wonder if a case of an over-zealous CPS clutching at straws. It seems that he would need to be found guilty of both charges to be found guilty of one or the other on their own. Thats a tough hill to climb.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lue555Man
2 weeks ago

harrow

They have to take some of the blame if a guy says he sti free does that mean it’s true people never lie?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *3versMan
2 weeks ago

glasgow


"Ive just be reading about this case and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. From what ive seen so far the allegations of r*pe are questionable. If he wanted to give people hiv theres far easier ways than that, as some would willingly offer to be infected. Someone being r*ped doesn't tend to go to the loo several times during it. Surely there would need to be evidence of some kind of struggle? The charge of deliberately infecting someone and calling it gbh is a stretch, and probably unproveable. I wonder if a case of an over-zealous CPS clutching at straws. It seems that he would need to be found guilty of both charges to be found guilty of one or the other on their own. Thats a tough hill to climb."

R@pe is not giving consent, there doesn't have to be a struggle

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erscumdumpMan
2 weeks ago

Watford


"Ive just be reading about this case and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. From what ive seen so far the allegations of r*pe are questionable. If he wanted to give people hiv theres far easier ways than that, as some would willingly offer to be infected. Someone being r*ped doesn't tend to go to the loo several times during it. Surely there would need to be evidence of some kind of struggle? The charge of deliberately infecting someone and calling it gbh is a stretch, and probably unproveable. I wonder if a case of an over-zealous CPS clutching at straws. It seems that he would need to be found guilty of both charges to be found guilty of one or the other on their own. Thats a tough hill to climb.

R@pe is not giving consent, there doesn't have to be a struggle "

Indeed, but as with all such cases there needs to be some kind of evidence for CPS to move forward with it, and so far i've read about none and its one mans word against another. One incident is from 2016, and there are 17 counts in total. There's probably loads that isnt being reported, but 'he said vs he said' isn't and shouldn't be basis to get in front of jury who invariably will place heavy weight on a sensationalised and misunderstood infection. Does one thing prove the other? Intent needs to be proven. The outcome could have far reaching consequences one way or another.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andomguy321Man
2 weeks ago

reading

From the thread's title, I thought the football team was being sponsored by the Terrence Higgins Trust.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *3versMan
2 weeks ago

glasgow


"Ive just be reading about this case and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. From what ive seen so far the allegations of r*pe are questionable. If he wanted to give people hiv theres far easier ways than that, as some would willingly offer to be infected. Someone being r*ped doesn't tend to go to the loo several times during it. Surely there would need to be evidence of some kind of struggle? The charge of deliberately infecting someone and calling it gbh is a stretch, and probably unproveable. I wonder if a case of an over-zealous CPS clutching at straws. It seems that he would need to be found guilty of both charges to be found guilty of one or the other on their own. Thats a tough hill to climb.

R@pe is not giving consent, there doesn't have to be a struggle

Indeed, but as with all such cases there needs to be some kind of evidence for CPS to move forward with it, and so far i've read about none and its one mans word against another. One incident is from 2016, and there are 17 counts in total. There's probably loads that isnt being reported, but 'he said vs he said' isn't and shouldn't be basis to get in front of jury who invariably will place heavy weight on a sensationalised and misunderstood infection. Does one thing prove the other? Intent needs to be proven. The outcome could have far reaching consequences one way or another."

They will look for similarities between the alleged offences and prosecute on that - the corroboration is between the similarities of the events as r@pe is often done in a private and unobserved setting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ary1066Man
2 weeks ago

Preston


"Ive just be reading about this case and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. From what ive seen so far the allegations of r*pe are questionable. If he wanted to give people hiv theres far easier ways than that, as some would willingly offer to be infected. Someone being r*ped doesn't tend to go to the loo several times during it. Surely there would need to be evidence of some kind of struggle? The charge of deliberately infecting someone and calling it gbh is a stretch, and probably unproveable. I wonder if a case of an over-zealous CPS clutching at straws. It seems that he would need to be found guilty of both charges to be found guilty of one or the other on their own. Thats a tough hill to climb.

R@pe is not giving consent, there doesn't have to be a struggle

Indeed, but as with all such cases there needs to be some kind of evidence for CPS to move forward with it, and so far i've read about none and its one mans word against another. One incident is from 2016, and there are 17 counts in total. There's probably loads that isnt being reported, but 'he said vs he said' isn't and shouldn't be basis to get in front of jury who invariably will place heavy weight on a sensationalised and misunderstood infection. Does one thing prove the other? Intent needs to be proven. The outcome could have far reaching consequences one way or another."

The case In Brighton was proved on much the same premise, the convicted was found to have kept his status hidden and infected several men then taunted his victims once they no longer wanted to continue meeting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *awihMan
2 weeks ago

Aldershot


"Ive just be reading about this case and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. From what ive seen so far the allegations of r*pe are questionable. If he wanted to give people hiv theres far easier ways than that, as some would willingly offer to be infected. Someone being r*ped doesn't tend to go to the loo several times during it. Surely there would need to be evidence of some kind of struggle? The charge of deliberately infecting someone and calling it gbh is a stretch, and probably unproveable. I wonder if a case of an over-zealous CPS clutching at straws. It seems that he would need to be found guilty of both charges to be found guilty of one or the other on their own. Thats a tough hill to climb."

Well if the sex is non consensual that would class it as the R word. If one person is not conscious because of D’s (bloody word filters) or impaired because of them then they cannot give consent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ockanonamasMan
2 weeks ago

Manchester

Moral of the story. Look after your own sexual health. Get tested regularly, get on PrEP and DoxyPEP, get the vaccinations that you need. Don't accept and trust what the other guy tells you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erscumdumpMan
2 weeks ago

Watford


"Ive just be reading about this case and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. From what ive seen so far the allegations of r*pe are questionable. If he wanted to give people hiv theres far easier ways than that, as some would willingly offer to be infected. Someone being r*ped doesn't tend to go to the loo several times during it. Surely there would need to be evidence of some kind of struggle? The charge of deliberately infecting someone and calling it gbh is a stretch, and probably unproveable. I wonder if a case of an over-zealous CPS clutching at straws. It seems that he would need to be found guilty of both charges to be found guilty of one or the other on their own. Thats a tough hill to climb.

Well if the sex is non consensual that would class it as the R word. If one person is not conscious because of D’s (bloody word filters) or impaired because of them then they cannot give consent."

I'm aware what it is, I think most people are. None of us know what went on here. The case is interesting because the guilt of one charge could imply guilt of the other charge, and could in fact be seen as evidence in itself. Proving intent is key, and if intent cant be proven it creates a high bar for the r*pe prosecutions. I would have thought it would make more sense to trial two things separately, hence my concern that if intent to infect cant be proven, the other allegations become even harder to prove even if they are true.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *3versMan
2 weeks ago

glasgow


"Ive just be reading about this case and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. From what ive seen so far the allegations of r*pe are questionable. If he wanted to give people hiv theres far easier ways than that, as some would willingly offer to be infected. Someone being r*ped doesn't tend to go to the loo several times during it. Surely there would need to be evidence of some kind of struggle? The charge of deliberately infecting someone and calling it gbh is a stretch, and probably unproveable. I wonder if a case of an over-zealous CPS clutching at straws. It seems that he would need to be found guilty of both charges to be found guilty of one or the other on their own. Thats a tough hill to climb.

Well if the sex is non consensual that would class it as the R word. If one person is not conscious because of D’s (bloody word filters) or impaired because of them then they cannot give consent.

I'm aware what it is, I think most people are. None of us know what went on here. The case is interesting because the guilt of one charge could imply guilt of the other charge, and could in fact be seen as evidence in itself. Proving intent is key, and if intent cant be proven it creates a high bar for the r*pe prosecutions. I would have thought it would make more sense to trial two things separately, hence my concern that if intent to infect cant be proven, the other allegations become even harder to prove even if they are true. "

Just because someone is found not guilty of one charge in a trial, this doesn't make it harder for the other crimes to be tried as each is tries on it's own set of evidence and legal argument

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top