How is it definitively the guy's fault? Obviously the girl consented to sex without the condom, and if not, that would be rape. If she did consent to this, the girl is at fault and not the guy
You are assuming the side without std initially is aware and willing to suffer the risk of std...
problem is, if the side with std disclosed this information, would the other party even want to have intercourse to begin with?
Lying about own's health and spreading diseases, how can you still justify this...
Did you read the posts? He LEAKED photos and videos, which is a criminal offence. It’s not “whether” it is, it “definitely” is now
The issue in this case is whether the lack of disclosure about an STD can make someone liable under the tort of negligence, and whether leaking intimate videos can make someone liable under the Protection from Harassment Act (2014)
Under the Spandeck framework, the factual foreseeability threshold is easily met. It is factually foreseeable that someone who knowingly carries an STD would spread it to a person they have a sexual encounter with.
The requirement of proximity is also easily met given that the plaintiff and defendant would be directly engaged in a physical intercourse. Thus, there is a prima facie duty of care.
As for policy considerations, there is a positive policy consideration to impose liability on a defendant who knowingly spread an STD to another.
As for breach and causation and remoteness, these elements are easily made out.
Therefore, the defendant can be liable under the tort of negligence. The plaintiff will be able to claim damages for the medical expenses necessary to treat the contracted STD, alongside any psychiatric injury if not too remote.
Under the Protection from Harassment Act, a plaintiff suffering harassment, alarm or distress as a result of a defendant using threatening, abusive, or insulting words, behaviour, or communication or published identity information intending to cause this exact damage may pursue a claim against the defendant.
It is very likely that the defendant, by threatening to release intimate recordings of the plaintiff, intended to cause harassment, alarm, or distress, and the intimate recordings fall under the limb of "threatening, abusive behaviour".
Thus, the defendant is liable under the Protection from Harassment Act.
The plaintiff may seek an injunction or Protection order against the plaintiff, alongside damages for the distress caused.
Blud above me used chatgpt😭
But regarding the act itself:
Simple breakdown of (part of) section 376 of penal code:
If the person makes a false statement regarding his std status, which then gets him/her the consent from his/her sexual partner, and he/she knows or has reason to believe that this consent was only given because of the false statement regarding the std status, and since it's piv and not just touching = up to 10 years+fine+caning
But here im assuming that the girl did ask the guy abt his std status beforehand and only consented cus he said he was clean
i typed this shit out dpmo
So tldr bro could be guilty, if your assumption holds?