Australia: Parenzee appeals again

Andree Chad Parenzee – who was found guilty in Adeleide in 2006 of three counts of endangering life; appealed last year by arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS and cannot be sexually transmitted; and who was sentenced to nine years in jail after losing the appeal – is appealing yet again.

Last week, his lawyer applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for permission to appeal again on mens rea grounds – that Parenzee's state of mind was that he did not think he could infect anyone with HIV.

Parenzee told his trial he used the "withdrawal method" when having sex with the women and thought that was a safe way of having sex.

"The question is whether at the end of the day that the evidence establishes or would prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that his actions were likely to lead to a particular outcome," his lawyer is quoted as saying in The Daily Telegraph.

In a widely reprinted Associated Press article, this is further elucidated:

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 sex.

The hearing was due to continue on Friday 18th, although no further reports have emerged so far.

Chad Paranzee did not know unprotected sex was AIDS risk
By Gavin Lower
Daily Telegraph
July 18, 2008

A MAN with HIV convicted of endangering the lives of three women by having unprotected sex with them is again trying to appeal against his convictions.

Chad Parenzee, 37, was found guilty in 2006 of three counts of endangering life and was sentenced last year to nine years in jail.

One of his victims contracted AIDS.

Parenzee has already lost two bids to appeal against his conviction by a South Australian Supreme Court jury and yesterday applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for permission to appeal again.

His lawyer, Andrew Tokley, argued there had not been enough evidence at Parenzee's trial to convict him.

"The question is whether at the end of the day that the evidence establishes or would prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that his actions were likely to lead to a particular outcome," he said.

Mr Tokley said there was no evidence Parenzee was told that having unprotected sex would lead to a person's life being in danger.

Parenzee told his trial he used the "withdrawal method" when having sex with the women and thought that was a safe way of having sex.

Crown prosecutor Martin Hinton, QC, said Parenzee presented as a "particularly unsatisfactory witness" at his trial and that he was aware of the risks of transmitting HIV within weeks of being diagnosed.

"It was open to the jury he knew the risks he was exposing these women to," Mr Hinton said.

Parenzee's appeal also featured argument over the definition of the word "likely" in the charge.

Last year Parenzee lost a bid to appeal against his conviction, arguing HIV did not cause AIDS and could not be transmitted sexually.

The appeal was dismissed with Justice Sulan describing the argument as "implausible".

The CCA reserved its decision on the latest appeal.

HIV-positive man 'didn't know risk'
July 17, 2008
Article from: AAP

AN HIV-positive man jailed for endangering life by having unprotected sex 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 sex 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 sex 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 sex.

"There was no evidence Mr Parenzee was told that having unprotected sex would lead to a person's life being in danger," Mr Tokley said.

He believed that if he withdrew while having unprotected sex there was no risk, Mr Tokley said.

The hearing continues.