Sexual health and the Law

Jesseppe

I have posted this here because my question is legal in nature however it is also connected to sexual health.
Yesterday I received a call telling me my ex had tested positive for Chlamydia, she believes she contracted it from me, at this point I cannot confirm or deny this until I am tested myself.
She is very upset (understandably) to the point of being extremely abusive, its why we broke up in the first place.
I'm quite happy to co-operate and let her know my results etc however she feels the need to threaten all sorts anyway.
She claims she can get a 'supeena' or take me to court for my results or even just to ensure that I have all tests done.
This woman is not beyond blackmail, emotional or otherwise to get what she wants or even just to punish so I need to know if this is in fact the case as I just don't know where to go for advice, if she's making all this up then someone here who knows what they're talking about will probably say its a ridiculous thread but I simply don't know so your indulgence is greatly appreciated

seamus

Are you in the United States?

If not, then she's just screaming words at you because she's annoyed.

She cannot take you to court to force you to get an STD test and she cannot take you to court to force you to reveal the results of any STD test to her.

If she does say anything to anyone else, you can bring a defamation action against her for ruining your reputation.

She's clearly just hysterical and abusive. Get the test, whatever the result is, tell her it was clear and then go on your way. If you do happen to have the disease, it's none of her business and telling her the truth is likely to cause more hassle then it solves.

Jesseppe

Thank you Seamus, information like that will help me cut through the web of BS that she spins. I live in Dublin so I am reassured by your post

drkpower

Its may not be quite as staightforward as Seamus is saying.

The general rule is that your own medical details are confidential and cannot be released. Your g/f cant gain access to your records for the sake of her curiosity (how did i get chlamydia?). There are a couple of exceptions though, but its doubtful if any are likely to be directly relevent.

First, knowingly/recklessly infecting someone with a communicable disease is a crime; i know you claim (and I dont disbelieve you;)) you did not know of your Chlamidya status, but if your ex reported it, and the Gardai investigated it, your doctor (or you) could be obliged to release this information. Personal injury proceedings could be pursued on the same basis and an Order could be sought for release of records/forcing you to submit to a test. In Ireland, afaik, noone has ever brought criminal or civil proceedings in respect of someone knowingly/recklessly infecting another, but it is entirely possible (and has happened in the UK - pretty much the same relevent laws).

Finally, if your doctor had a reasonable suspicion that you were infecting others, he could disclose your results, but rather than disclose them to your ex-g/f he would need to disclose them to the authorities or your present partner(s).

For the record, in addition to the usual 'this is not legal advice' disclaimer (;)), I would also like to add that I am not suggesting any illicit behaviour on your part, Im just explaining the circumstances in which your ex g/f might be able to do what she is threatening.

Tom Young

See the thing is we don't do legal advice here on the Legal Discussion, we merely discuss legal matters, etc.

In terms of the post Seamus drafted above, it appears to be on the money.

If it is what she says it is, then you really will know fairly soon. So get it checked and fast.

In terms of the law, there might be some elements which could be brought to bare, though I suspect you're better off without same said. There are other ways to catch those infections.

Tom

MagicSean

Is defamation not only for untrue claims? If it turns out the op had an std is it still defamation?

Tom Young

k_mac wrote: »

Is defamation not only for untrue claims? If it turns out the op had an std is it still defamation?

Depends on the publication of same. The test a “defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly.

Might have an action in deceit.

The tort of deceit, also known as "fraud", dates in its modern development from Pasley v. Freeman. Here the defendant said that a third party was creditworthy to the claimant, knowing he was broke. The claimant loaned the third party money and lost it. He sued the defendant successfully.
Deceit occurs when a person makes a factual misrepresentation, knowing that it is false (or having no belief in its truth and being reckless as to whether it is true) and intending it to be relied on by the recipient, and the recipient acts to his or her detriment in reliance on it.
The leading case in English law is Derry v. Peek (1888) LR 14 App Cas 337.

FreudianSlippers

Tom Young wrote: »

Depends on the publication of same. The test a “defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly.

I think k_mac is correct on this one. Section 16(1) of the Defamation Act 2009 states that the defence of truth is an absolute defence to an action in defamation. That is that the statement was true in all material aspects.

Now, while it may be true that OP has an STD there is no way that the other party could prove that the statement that OP gave the other party the STD was true.

MagicSean

OisinT wrote: »

I think k_mac is correct on this one. Section 16(1) of the Defamation Act 2009 states that the defence of truth is an absolute defence to an action in defamation. That is that the statement was true in all material aspects.

Now, while it may be true that OP has an STD there is no way that the other party could prove that the statement that OP gave the other party the STD was true.

Who would the burden of proof be on though?

speedfight

k_mac wrote: »

Who would the burden of proof be on though?

The truth is a defence under the Act thus the burden falls onto the person claiming the defence. They must not only prove the statement true but any other innuendo that may appear from it. So if it was said of person A by person B to person C that "he gave me an std the dirty dog" not only would the fact of A having it, transmitting it have to be shown, but probably that they were loose sexually and took no precautions generally.

K_mac- you better go update that BBLS, you are years behind

MagicSean

speedfight wrote: »

The truth is a defence under the Act thus the burden falls onto the person claiming the defence. They must not only prove the statement true but any other innuendo that may appear from it. So if it was said of person A by person B to person C that "he gave me an std the dirty dog" not only would the fact of A having it, transmitting it have to be shown, but probably that they were loose sexually and took no precautions generally.

Is telling someone else about an std defamation? I thought it had to be something more than a passing comment. And if person B gave evidence they had never slept with anyone else other than person A would that not be proof to tip the balance of probabilities?

speedfight wrote: »

K_mac- you better go update that BBLS, you are years behind

I dont practice law so I dont need to update anything. My BBLS is fine, as are the jackeens in Navan. Any other reference to my personal life you would like to share with boards?

seamus

k_mac wrote: »

Is telling someone else about an std defamation? I thought it had to be something more than a passing comment. And if person B gave evidence they had never slept with anyone else other than person A would that not be proof to tip the balance of probabilities?

My lay understanding of defamation is that the burden of proof *always* lies with the person who made the statement.

Thus if person A states that person B has an STD, the burden of proof is on person A to show that this is true. Person B does not even have to get an STD test to prove their innocence, person A must prove it to be true. Which would be quite difficult if person B hasn't had an STD test.

What would person B's obligations be in such a case? Could they be compelled to reveal the results of an STD test to the court, or could they refuse to say what the results are, since the burden of proof is on person A?

I dont practice law so I dont need to update anything. My BBLS is fine, as are the jackeens in Navan. Any other reference to my personal life you would like to share with boards?

No need to take it personally...

speedfight

k_mac wrote: »

Is telling someone else about an std defamation? I thought it had to be something more than a passing comment. And if person B gave evidence they had never slept with anyone else other than person A would that not be proof to tip the balance of probabilities?

Well it could potentially lower the opinion of the person in the eyes of reasonable people and therefore yes it can be defamation unless a defence of truth is successful. If the truth of the std is proven that is a complete defence. If they cannot prove the innuendo, that B was sexually loose then that is defamation.

I dont practice law so I dont need to update anything. My BBLS is fine, as are the jackeens in Navan. Any other reference to my personal life you would like to share with boards?

Is that permission to do so?

speedfight

seamus wrote: »

My lay understanding of defamation is that the burden of proof *always* lies with the person who made the statement.



What would person B's obligations be in such a case? Could they be compelled to reveal the results of an STD test to the court, or could they refuse to say what the results are, since the burden of proof is on person A?


yes the results could be compelled through the discovery process regardless of where the burden lies. It is likely the court would order discovery in these circumstances.

I don't know of any rule that would compel a party to undergo a test in these circumstances. Therefore if no test has been carried out, no results can be ordered and the truth would be difficult to establish from a defence perspective.

FreudianSlippers

k_mac wrote: »

I dont practice law so I dont need to update anything. My BBLS is fine, as are the jackeens in Navan. Any other reference to my personal life you would like to share with boards?

speedfight wrote: »

Is that permission to do so?

I'm sensing some animosity here...

seamus wrote: »

My lay understanding of defamation is that the burden of proof *always* lies with the person who made the statement.

Thus if person A states that person B has an STD, the burden of proof is on person A to show that this is true. Person B does not even have to get an STD test to prove their innocence, person A must prove it to be true. Which would be quite difficult if person B hasn't had an STD test.

What would person B's obligations be in such a case? Could they be compelled to reveal the results of an STD test to the court, or could they refuse to say what the results are, since the burden of proof is on person A?

No need to take it personally...

It's reverse onus, so the defamatory statement is automatically presumed to be false, until the defendant proves it is true. They would have to prove that person B had an STD, it is doubtful that the court could order person B to divulge that information and it would be privileged anyway. I suppose person A would attempt to convince the court that they had no STD before sexual contact with person A (with some sort of proof...) and had STD following. Then the court would have to decide on the balance of probabilities

FreudianSlippers

speedfight wrote: »

yes the results could be compelled through the discovery process regardless of where the burden lies. It is likely the court would order discovery in these circumstances.

I don't know of any rule that would compel a party to undergo a test in these circumstances. Therefore if no test has been carried out, no results can be ordered and the truth would be difficult to establish from a defence perspective.

I'd definitely be replying with any medical test results on the 2nd part of the first schedule

speedfight

OisinT wrote: »

I'm sensing some animosity here...





It's reverse onus, so the defamatory statement is automatically presumed to be false, until the defendant proves it is true. They would have to prove that person B had an STD, it is doubtful that the court could order person B to divulge that information and it would be privileged anyway. I suppose person A would attempt to convince the court that they had no STD before sexual contact with person A (with some sort of proof...) and had STD following. Then the court would have to decide on the balance of probabilities

The court, or more likely the County registrar or Master of the High Court could order the release of that information. It is not doubtful at all. There is no privilege attaching to medical results under Irish law.

FreudianSlippers

speedfight wrote: »

The court, or more likely the County registrar or Master of the High Court could order the release of that information. It is not doubtful at all. There is no privilege attaching to medical results under Irish law.

I was thinking more along the lines of litigation privilege - I was under the impression that the person would have been getting the test in order to prove they had no STD in contemplation of litigation.

Sure, if one already existed from a previous test then it could be included, but the defendant would have to be aware of this. I'd certainly argue that including an old STD test in the request for discovery was a fishing expedition at best.

speedfight

OisinT wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of litigation privilege - I was under the impression that the person would have been getting the test in order to prove they had no STD in contemplation of litigation.

Sure, if one already existed from a previous test then it could be included, but the defendant would have to be aware of this. I'd certainly argue that including an old STD test in the request for discovery was a fishing expedition at best.

Well it would be inadvisable to go for the test in contemplation of litigation in circumstances where the person who made the statement cannot possibly prove the existance of an std as no test was ever carried out. See my previous post.

It is not a fishing expedition to request copies of documents relating to the sexual health of the person in these circumstances. It would clearly be to dispose of the action and to save on costs. It is very narrow in its scope.

FreudianSlippers

I see what you're saying and I agree to an extent, but wouldn't that be presuming that records relating to the sexual health exist?

I totally agree with you about not sending a person for a test in contemplation of litigation save where the person actually does not have an STD.

speedfight

OisinT wrote: »

I see what you're saying and I agree to an extent, but wouldn't that be presuming that records relating to the sexual health exist?

I totally agree with you about not sending a person for a test in contemplation of litigation save where the person actually does not have an STD.

Well if you knew 100% that documents exist you would have a copy for the trial judge. There is always going to be doubt of the existance of the documents and the determination of whether there is or not is the point of discovery.

FreudianSlippers

Just thought of something regarding this. In DPP v C it was held that fraud as to a material fact could vitiate consent to intercourse... so theoretically if OP knew he had an STD and mislead the other person in that regard, it could be construed as rape?

drkpower

OisinT wrote: »

Just thought of something regarding this. In DPP v C it was held that fraud as to a material fact could vitiate consent to intercourse... so theoretically if OP knew he had an STD and mislead the other person in that regard, it could be construed as rape?

Dont think so?; the position is and always has been that in order for fraud to vitiate consent it must be fraud as to the nature of the act itself, or as to the identity of the person who does the act.

FreudianSlippers

I was under the impression that DPP v C distinguished further from nature and identity. Not well versed in criminal though.

mrjoneill

Nothing is private except a genuine lawful client-lawyer relationship and even at that, a statutory enquiry may peruse over it. On a theoretical view of such cases the intentionally or negligently giving any communicable disease could be an offence and the police could in theory pursue any enquiry they may feel would be helpful for their investigation that includes subjecting you to medical examination.
In R v. Miller" Actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor..."
(ii) an intimate sample, authorised by a garda not below the rank of inspector, may be taken for the purposes of forensic testing, and may also generate a DNA profile to be added to the DNA Database System (s.12); and,
An intimate sample includes blood.

Have a look at the English case of Sarah Jane Porter where there was a conviction for intentionally spread the HIV virus and this is not the only such case in the UK and the same laws are applicable to Ireland.

On the other hand, for libel it must be in writing or broadcasted and must be received or read by a third party, thus a private letter correspondence opened by you is not libel.

drkpower

Stop cutting & pasting!!

mrjoneill

there is no cut and past

Tom Young

drkpower wrote: »

Stop cutting & pasting!!

I agree and what act is that quote from is it the CJA 2006 or 2007, cite it please, with its appropriate section.

The charter does contain the ability for us to edit and indeed infract.

This is not going unnoticed.

Tom

mrjoneill

is this like school

Tom Young

mrjoneill wrote: »

is this like school

No it is not like school. It merely states the rules about quoting, referencing and citing in the forum charter.

Please abide by it.

Tom

Jesseppe

thanks to all, I got the all clear, I never had this sti in the first place. I am more than a little peeved though because in her eyes I was guilty until proven innocent and the mental anguish I was subject to and endured was character building to say the least

Tom Young

Jesseppe wrote: »

thanks to all, I got the all clear, I never had this sti in the first place. I am more than a little peeved though because in her eyes I was guilty until proven innocent and the mental anguish I was subject to and endured was character building to say the least

We don't do legal advice here, but now you might consider thinking about your options. I might close this thread with your permission?