STDs and Legal Liability in NZ

Discovering that a partner has transmitted a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) is a profound betrayal that triggers a cascade of medical, emotional, and legal questions. In the context of high-conflict relationships or divorces, this discovery often serves as concrete evidence of infidelity or reckless disregard for a partner’s wellbeing. While the emotional wound is immediate, the legal pathway in New Zealand is complex, governed by specific statutes within the Crimes Act and limited by the unique “no-fault” accident compensation scheme.

Transmitting an STD can be a crime in New Zealand under the Crimes Act 1961, typically prosecuted as criminal nuisance or grievous bodily harm. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must usually prove the individual knew they were infected and acted recklessly or intentionally by failing to take precautions or disclose their status to a partner.

Is Transmitting an STD a Crime in New Zealand?

In New Zealand, the act of transmitting a sexually transmitted disease is not defined by a single, specific “STD law.” Instead, it falls under broader provisions of the Crimes Act 1961. The legal system views the transmission of serious diseases through the lens of bodily harm and public safety.

For individuals navigating the breakdown of a relationship—particularly those involving high-conflict personalities or narcissistic dynamics—understanding the distinction between moral wrong and criminal liability is vital. While the betrayal feels criminal in nature, the threshold for police intervention is strictly defined by statute and case law.

The Legal Framework: Criminal Nuisance and GBH

When police and prosecutors assess a case involving the transmission of an STD (such as HIV, Herpes, or Hepatitis), they generally look to two specific sections of the Crimes Act 1961. The severity of the charge often depends on the intent of the accused and the severity of the health impact on the victim.

Section 145: Criminal Nuisance

Historically, the most common charge applied in these cases is Criminal Nuisance. Under Section 145, a person is criminally liable if they omit to discharge a legal duty, knowing that such omission would endanger the life, safety, or health of the public or any individual.

The precedent was largely set by the landmark case R v M (2003), where the Court of Appeal upheld that failing to disclose HIV-positive status prior to unprotected sexual intercourse constituted criminal nuisance. The “legal duty” arises from the inherent danger associated with the act. If a person knows they are infectious, they have a duty to take reasonable precautions (such as using condoms) or to disclose the risk to their partner to allow for informed consent.

Section 201: Infecting with Disease

A more direct, though less frequently utilized charge, is found in Section 201. This section explicitly states that everyone is liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years who, willfully and without lawful justification, causes or produces in any other person any disease or sickness. This charge requires a higher bar of “willful” intent, meaning the prosecutor must prove the accused wanted to infect the victim, rather than simply being reckless about the possibility.

Section 188: Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)

In cases where the disease causes severe, long-term health consequences (such as HIV), charges of causing Grievous Bodily Harm may be laid. GBH refers to really serious harm. If the transmission was reckless, it falls under Section 188(2); if it was intentional, it falls under Section 188(1), which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

For a detailed look at the specific statutes, you can refer to the Crimes Act 1961 on the New Zealand Legislation website.

The Difficulty of Proving Intent and Transmission

While the law exists, successfully prosecuting “transmitting std crime nz” cases is notoriously difficult. In high-conflict divorces, where emotions run high and accusations fly, the objective requirements of the law can be frustrating for victims seeking justice.

Proving Prior Knowledge

To be liable for criminal nuisance or reckless disregard, the accused must have known they were infected at the time of the sexual encounter. If a partner was asymptomatic and unaware of their status, they generally cannot be held criminally liable for transmission, as they did not possess the requisite mens rea (guilty mind).

Prosecutors often require medical records dating back prior to the relationship or testimony establishing that the accused had been diagnosed. In many high-conflict relationships involving gaslighting, the accused may deny ever receiving a diagnosis, complicating the evidentiary process.

The Science of Transmission

Establishing causation is another hurdle. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the only possible source of the infection. This often involves:

• Phylogenetic Analysis: Scientific testing that compares the genetic makeup of the virus in the victim and the accused to see if they are linked.
• Sexual History Scrutiny: The defense will often aggressively question the victim’s sexual history to introduce “reasonable doubt” that the infection could have come from a third party.

Civil Claims vs. Criminal Charges: The ACC Barrier

In many jurisdictions, such as the United States, a victim of STD transmission can sue their partner in civil court for personal injury, claiming damages for medical costs, pain, and suffering. New Zealand is different.

The ACC Bar on Personal Injury Lawsuits

New Zealand operates under a “no-fault” accident compensation scheme managed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Under the Accident Compensation Act 2001, if an injury (including a physical injury caused by a criminal act) is covered by ACC, the victim is statutorily barred from suing the perpetrator for compensatory damages.

This means you generally cannot sue an ex-partner for the medical costs or emotional trauma of contracting an STD if ACC covers the injury. ACC may provide support for treatment, counseling, and lost income, but it prevents the “million-dollar lawsuits” seen overseas.

The Exception: Exemplary Damages

There is a narrow exception. While you cannot sue for compensatory damages, New Zealand courts have allowed claims for exemplary damages (punitive damages) in cases where the defendant’s conduct was outrageous, flagrant, and malicious. However, these awards are rare and typically modest compared to international standards. They are designed to punish the offender rather than compensate the victim.

The High-Conflict Divorce Dynamic: Psychology of Betrayal

In the niche of high-conflict relationship psychology, an STD diagnosis often serves as the “unmasking” moment. For partners of individuals with narcissistic traits or those involved in coercive control, the transmission of a disease is often accompanied by psychological abuse.

DARVO and Gaslighting

A common tactic observed in these scenarios is DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender). When confronted with the positive test result, a high-conflict partner may:

• Deny they have the disease (even in the face of medical evidence).
• Attack the victim’s character, accusing them of infidelity.
• Reverse the narrative, claiming the victim gave the disease to them.

This psychological manipulation makes the legal process even more harrowing. Victims must prepare for a defense strategy that attacks their credibility and sexual morality. It is crucial to maintain strict documentation and rely on medical professionals rather than engaging in verbal disputes with the ex-partner.

Navigating the Police Investigation Process

If you believe you are the victim of a crime regarding STD transmission, the process involves several sensitive steps. It is advisable to consult with a lawyer who understands criminal law before approaching the police, to ensure evidence is preserved correctly.

1. Medical Evidence Collection: Do not rely on home tests. Obtain full panel testing from a GP or sexual health clinic. Request that samples be retained if possible for future sequencing.
2. Digital Evidence: Save all text messages, emails, or recordings where the partner admits to their status, discusses their health, or admits to not using protection.
3. Making a Statement: When filing a police report, be prepared for an invasive investigation. You will likely be asked to disclose your full sexual history to rule out other sources.

The police will assess whether there is sufficient evidence to meet the “test for prosecution” outlined in the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines. Given the complexities, many complaints do not result in charges, which can be re-traumatizing for victims expecting swift justice.

Focusing on Health and Recovery

While the pursuit of legal accountability is a valid response to betrayal, it should not supersede physical and mental recovery. The stress of a criminal investigation can exacerbate the trauma of the diagnosis.

Modern medicine has transformed the prognosis for many STDs. HIV is now a manageable chronic condition with a normal life expectancy, and other conditions like Hepatitis C are curable. Psychological recovery from the betrayal is often more difficult than the physical recovery.

In the context of high-conflict separation, “winning” may not be a criminal conviction, but rather disengaging from the toxic dynamic and securing one’s own health. Support from organizations like the Burnett Foundation Aotearoa can be invaluable for navigating both the medical and social aspects of diagnosis.

Frequently Asked Questions