Guilty plea in HIV-assault case

[Pieman]

Apparently I lacked the prurient interest to read in sufficient detail.

So it would seem.

 

[kratz]

An update to this necro-thread.

Shared from the Barrie Examiner

Warrant issued for HIV woman


By STAFF

Updated 15 hours ago


(STAFF) — An arrest warrant has been issued for an HIV-positive woman who has a history of having unprotected sex.

According to Barrie police, 39-year-old Jennifer Murphy was under house arrest at the Elizabeth Fry Society in Barrie when she left the home and failed to return on Tuesday morning.

“She was suppose to be residing at a certain place here in Barrie and we received reports that she left the residence and didn't return,” Const. Toni Dufour said.

“We don't have any knowledge of her actions right now, but we definitely encourage all people to use precautions in personal activities.”

Murphy is well known to officers in the area after being convicted in 2005 and sentenced to house arrest for having unprotected sex with a CFB Borden soldier without telling him of her HIV.

At that time, a world-wide warning was circulated out to all Canadian soldiers who may have had sexual contact with her, as she was known to hang around the single soldiers' residences – once wearing nothing but a pink thong in the hallways.

Last September, Murphy was picked up again after a police officer caught her with her pants down with another man in a secluded area near Milligan’s Pond in Barrie.

Days later, two other men came forward to police and claimed they also were victims.

Murphy was then charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault.

“We haven't initiated a search party yet,” Dufour said. “If anyone does know where she might be staying they should call us. We would appreciate any help in locating her.”

She was denied bail and was being held in custody at the Central North Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene, but last month at a bail review in Superior Court, Justice Susan Healey and the Crown attorney agreed to her release into the more relaxed custody of the Barrie Elizabeth Fry Society. She had conditions to stay on her medications and remain indoors 24 hours a day, unless accompanied by staff.


Police continue to investigate.

— with files from Tracy Mclaughlin

[email protected]

 

[LineJumper]

Great! More potential victims. I hope local media is informing the public.

 

[kratz]

ref: Barrie Examiner

The media is doing a good job informing the public that she got a second chance and has blown the 2nd opportunity off, again.

Judge gives Murphy a second chance; strict bail conditions remain
By Tracy McLaughlin, Special to QMI AGENCY
Thursday, August 9, 2012 7:38:43 EDT PM

An HIV-positive woman facing sexual assault charges — and who had left the custody of Elizabeth Fry Society — is back out on bail and again wanted by Barrie police.



Jennifer Murphy, 39, of no fixed address, was arrested and charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault last September after allegedly having unprotected sex with three men – the first on Aug. 13, another on Sept. 8 and a third man who made a complaint on Sept. 11.

She was initially denied bail because the justice of the peace found she might be a risk to public safety.

But Murphy appealed that ruling and in April a higher court judge agreed to release her with strict bail conditions that she remain on her medications and remain indoors at the Barrie Elizabeth Fry home on Maple Street, 24 hours a day, unless she is with a worker.

However, on May 29 she walked away from the home and was re-arrested in Toronto four days later and taken back into custody at Central North Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene.

Her whereabouts are currently not known and police are looking for her.

People who breach their bail conditions are not typically given another chance, but in this case, Murphy’s was. On July 7, after serving about 30 days in jail, Murphy pleaded guilty to breaching her bail and a judge agreed to sentence her to time served and then released her on the same previous bail conditions.

She still faces the three counts of aggravated sexual assault, but that case remains in limbo, pending the outcome of an unrelated HIV case that is now sitting with the Supreme Court of Canada.

In that case, health-care and legal advocates have argued that it should not be a crime for HIV infected people to have sex with unknowing partners, as long as the infected person is on anti-viral therapy. They argue there is no risk to a sex partner, since modern medical treatment can reduce the HIV viral load to be undetectable.

Murphy’s lawyer, Angela McLeod, says she agrees with the argument and insists the crime of aggravated sex assault should not apply to HIV carriers who are being medically treated, since their risk of infection to others is extremely low.

McLeod says if the Supreme Court agrees with the argument, Murphy’s charges could be automatically dropped.

“We are eagerly waiting the Supreme Court’s judgment,” said McLeod on Thursday. “We are hoping that, at last, the laws have caught up with medical advancement regarding HIV.”

Murphy is expected back in court Sept. 7 where the outcome of the ruling will be discussed and it will be decided whether her charges will be dropped or if she will have to go to trial.

Seven years ago, Murphy was convicted in another aggravated sexual assault after having unprotected sex with a CFB Borden soldier without telling him of her HIV.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The media is doing a good job informing the public that she got a second chance and has blown the 2nd opportunity off, again.

Wording is so important sometimes...

Hope the put her away this time.

 

[kratz]

1. CTV.ca: Former Barrie , Ont. woman's conviction for HIV non-disclosure overturned,.Aug 30, 2022
2. . CTV.ca: Jennifer Murphy sentenced to two years in jail., Sept 20, 2013
3. CBC.ca: Woman under house arrest unhappy with treatment, Dec 15, 2005

This is the same individual over the past 17 years. At the bottom of this week's article:

"Nobody goes out and maliciously tries to pass it on. We need to do better, and I think Canada can do better," he concluded.

In separate chargers, 2005:

In 2005, Murphy was convicted of the same charge and sentenced to 12 months house arrest after having unprotected sex with a soldier from CFB Borden and not telling him she was HIV positive.

 

[Weinie]

1. CTV.ca: Former Barrie , Ont. woman's conviction for HIV non-disclosure overturned,.Aug 30, 2022
2. . CTV.ca: Jennifer Murphy sentenced to two years in jail., Sept 20, 2013
3. CBC.ca: Woman under house arrest unhappy with treatment, Dec 15, 2005

This is the same individual over the past 17 years. At the bottom of this week's article:



In separate chargers, 2005:

From the article.

"My children don't know a world where there hasn't been HIV or AIDS in the world, and they don't need to see people go to jail because they have a hidden disability," Clarke said.


OMFG.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This “PC wording” trend has gone way to far. Way to far. Disability ffs.

 

[brihard]

What’s the issue with the term “invisible disability”? It’s a perfectly apt description for a number of different medical conditions that can be profoundly disabling but aren’t readily apparent to someone looking and seeing.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The Ontario Court of Appeal decision

R. v. Murphy, 2022 ONCA 615

The pedantics of "disability" aside, I wonder how the recent Supreme Court ruling "that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom during sex but they do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault" should/could change the way that a similar case be interpreted.

The case in brief:

Supreme Court of Canada | R. v. Kirkpatrick

www.scc-csc.ca

And the full decision

R. v. Kirkpatrick - SCC Cases

decisions.scc-csc.ca

edited to add

For completeness, the single 2013 conviction that was overturned by this appeal can be found here

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013canlii54139/2013canlii54139.html

 

[Jarnhamar]

What’s the issue with the term “invisible disability”? It’s a perfectly apt description for a number of different medical conditions that can be profoundly disabling but aren’t readily apparent to someone looking and seeing.

My guess is that while your probably technically correct the context it's used here is that she's some how the victim and we should take pity on her.