Intimacy and Responsibility: The Criminalisation of HIV Transmission by Matthew Weait
| Author | James Chalmers |
| Published date | 01 November 2008 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00728_1.x |
| Date | 01 November 2008 |
but also because it would be interesting to see how Ogus would frame them in
the contextof his novel systematization of lawand economics. One area is litiga-
tion.The book does make reference to the economicmodel of litigationbut does
so in passing. A discussion of cost-shifting rules, legal aid or the 1997 civil justice
reformsi n England andWales would provide another helpfulexamination of the
application of law and economics to relevant UK legal issues. A second area is
familylaw, in particularthe current controversyconcerning the e¡ectsof no-fault
rules in divorce. Finally, in chapter nine, the author could have expanded his dis-
cussion oflegal culture to include the now well-established, butstill controversial,
legal origins literature (which tends to argue that the common law is superior to
French civil law in terms of fostering sustainable economic growth).
Costs and Ca utionaryTales is an excellent book.It is more than a textbook, while
still being useful forstudents. It is more than an introduction to law and econom-
ics, while remaining extremely reader-friendly, particularly for those new to the
¢eld. Itis more than a mere discussion of legal policy making froman economics
perspective, although it s hould perhaps be made mandatory reading for those
who make policy. It is not a law and economics treatis e, although Ogus provides
a novel systematization of the ¢eld and develops new insights, thus making the
book interesting to lawand economics scholars. It is very hardto write a book on
a ¢eld, such as law and economics, that can appeal equally to students, scholars,
policymakers and experts. But Anthony Ogus has achieved this result with this
book.
Nuno Garoupa
n
Matt hew Weait, Intimacy and Responsibility: The Criminalisation of HIV
Tr a n sm i s s i o n,Oxford: Routledge-Cavendish, 233 pp, pb d19.9 5.
In responding to the criminalisation of HIV transmission in the United King-
dom, academic lawyers tend to approach the issue from one of two perspectives.
The ¢rst is to see this development as a necessary and even desirable consequence
of attempts to make criminal law rational and coherent. Surely there must be a
general principle that recklessly causing serious bodily harm to another person is
a proper subject forthe attention of the criminal law? And if so, how could trans-
mitting such a serious infection not fallwithin that principle’s scope?If the struc-
ture of the O¡ences Against the Person Act 1861 fails to recognise such a
possibility in respect of sexually transmitted infections ^ as seemed to be the case
prior to RvDica[2004] QB 1257 ^ then forsuch lawyers,that is merelya wrinkle
in the law which was rightly smoothed over when the opportunity arose.
Consistent with this perspective, when the Law Commission proposed to
bring the transmission of disease within the law of o¡ences against the person in
1993, it argued that it was merely removing a ‘technical bar to conviction’ rather
than changing any substantive rule (Law Commission,‘Legislating the Criminal
n
Universityof Ill inoisCol legeof Law.
Reviews
103 5
r2008 The Author.Journal Compilation r2008 The Modern Law Review Limited.
(2008) 71(6) 1032^1049
To continue reading
Request your trial