The UK Crown Prosecution Service says there is no need to disclose , but don’t lie if asked. That applies to any STI or HIV. And don’t be malicious or reckless.
A case in Australia in May 2026 hit the headlines when a man was sentenced to 13 months. He did lie when he was directly asked about STIs. And he had unprotected sex with the partner, so he could indeed be called reckless.
He had received a leaflet from the clinic where he was diagnosed which stated that there was no legal requirement to disclose. He had not realised there was a risk of transmission when he could see nothing on his skin.
He was advised by his lawyer to plead guilty. From our research, every time a man is accused of transmission by his partner, they have been advised to plead guilty. This means that there has, so far, never been a trial. In a trial, a jury would be addressed by expert doctors. They would hear how common this is, how two out of three people who catch it will not notice, and that there are no serious medical consequences
It is a totally unfair situation where the two people who don’t realise they have it can do what they like. And yet society expects the one in three who is aware of the diagnosis to behave differently. What would you think of a speed limit or other law which only applies to one in three people?
The man was given a thirteen month sentence which he will serve in the community on an intensive correction order.
Comment from an Australian academic journal explain why criminalising the transmission of an extremely common condition might backfire. It makes people reluctant to get diagnosed, and has been shown to make absolutely no difference to rales of infection.
The first case in UK was similar. David was not educated about. And his girlfriend was furious with him when he ended their relationship.
