Parenzee' problem is that he's now a guilty man, at least in the eyes
of the law.
He should have used this arguments, along with the previous one, at
his trial.
<http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24034787-29277,00.html>:
----- Begin Quote -----
AN HIV-positive man jailed for endangering life by having unprotected
*** with three woman did not know he was risking their lives, an
appeals court has been told.
Chad Parenzee, 37, was convicted in 2006 and jailed until at least
January 2011 on three counts of endangering life after a woman he had
*** with, a mother of two, became infected with HIV.
The full court of the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal is
today hearing an application for Parenzee to appeal his conviction.
Parenzee's lawyer, Andrew Tokley, argued there was no evidence having
unprotected *** was likely to endanger life.
He said the word "likely" was synonymous with more than probable and
there was no quantifiable evidence at his client's trial to prove that
he was putting anyone's life at risk each time he had ***.
"There was no evidence Mr Parenzee was told that having unprotected
*** would lead to a person's life being in danger," Mr Tokley said.
He believed that if he withdrew while having unprotected *** there was
no risk, Mr Tokley said.
The hearing continues.
----- End Quote -----
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
4,934 days and counting...
|
