Plan B Forum

HIV acrobat remanded in custody
Leah Fineran | May 26th, 2010

.A CIRCUS acrobat accused of spreading HIV to a Gold Coast woman has been remanded in custody after appearing on his birthday in the Southport Magistrates Court this morning.

Zimbabwean-born Godfrey Zaburoni, 32, is facing two charges of grievous bodily harm and malicious acts intended to cause grievous bodily harm after a woman who tested positive to HIV made a complaint against him.

Police prosecutor Danielle Hunt requested a suppression order on the complainant's identity which was granted by acting magistrate Gary Finger.

Mr Zaburoni was remanded in custody until June 9.

Police will allege Mr Zaburoni has given authorities the names of 12 other women with whom is allegedly had sex.

Mr Zaburoni, who also performed under the name Zebroni, was arrested in Penrith, NSW on Saturday and extradited to the Gold Coast on Tuesday.

Queensland Health is continuing a nationwide appeal for any women who have had sexual relations with Mr Zaburoni to come forward for HIV testing.

Anyone with concerns can call the Queensland Health hotline 13HEALTH (1343 2584).

Duty solicitor Claire Boothman did not apply for bail for Mr Zaburoni.

Three of his friends who turned up at court said they shocked by the news.


One of them, a former flatmate, said he was shocked by the charges and `the whole situation was traumatising'.

Another said Mr Zaburoni was very charismatic.

<-----wouldn't kick him outta bed for farting!


This is a big talking point here at the moment.

What this guy did was wrong and he should be punished but IMHO the women he shagged who didn't practise safe sex should be be held accountable for their actions too! Some of the blame needs to lie with them. Yet they seem to all be innocent victims in this!!

I am quite sure this guy would have no problems pulling birds .....hot fit black guys are few and far between round these parts and the nature of the Gold Coast would mean there are a fair few that shagged him. Yes, he should have worn a condom, but he didn't which makes him a total twat, but those women he did shag should have insisted he wore one. Which also makes them irresponsible too.

Dang, I can't believe pressing charges for this;

irresponsible - yes, criminal - I dunno

It would have to proved that he knowingly had sex with women just to spread the HIV, to make this a crime.

Murder one, open and shut. Lock him up forever.

Wasn't he in Milli Vanilli?

Doesn't it boil down to when he knew he was HIV +?

Before he knew himself it was 50:50 responsibility, after he knew it was 100% his not to pass it on.



And he's an acrobat, very limber and flexible, I can imaging his pulling power would be great wherever he went.

Before he knew himself it was 50:50 responsibility, after he knew it was 100% his not to pass it on.

That is precisely the kind of thinking that has led millions of people to become infected. "He would tell me if he was positive, wouldn't he? So he must be negative..." "If she were worried about getting infected, she would have asked me to use a condom. So she must be positive..." One of the biggest challenges to HIV prevention is getting people to avoid making presumptions based on the silence of their partners. Criminalizing the failure to disclose HIV infection validates some of those presumptions; it creates a false sense of security among HIV-negative people that they don't need to take the initiative to protect themselves. And to those who think they might have been exposed but are wavering about getting tested, it gives one more reason to avoid finding out, since they can't be blamed for that which they don't know.

It's a disease, not biological warfare. Are we going to charge people with murder because they transmitted a particularly virulent strain of influenza to six people with whom they shared an elevator? Because that is the road we are now travelling. People are being charged with attempted murder when HIV transmission has not even occurred, in some cases when transmission is at best theretically possible, and only in conditions which did not exist during the incident in question (e.g. HIV+ person being charged with attempted murder after spitting on someone's exposed skin, when there is no indication that there could have been any blood-to-blood contact, such as from bleeding gums to an open wound). After 30 years there is still a hysteria about this disease that hampers the use of tried and true public health approaches to prevention. Criminalization feeds into stigma, and stigma is a strong disincentive to get tested, and that is where the real risk lies, because the vast, vast, vast majority of HIV infections are transmitted by people who don't know their serostatus, and ANYTHING that discourages people from testing will only exacerbate that problem.

There are only two diseases in the history of the world where exposing someone to or transmitting infection, even if incurable and/or fatal, has been made a criminal matter*: HIV and, more recently, Hepatitis C. It is hardly a coincidence that they both happen to be infections tranmitted primarily by sex and injection drug use. People with HIV are already seen as "bad" in some way, so to hell with actually applying sound legal principles, let's charge 'em with murder even if we can't makie the elements. Some HIV+ woman submits to condomless sex with an abusive partner because she knows he will beat her if she insists he wear one, and if he finds out she is HIV+ she could be lucky and he might throw her out into the street rather than kill her outright, but she deserves the same treatment as a mafia hitman conducting murder for hire,

*I exclude cases of biological terrorism and the like. We are not talking about people breaking into blood banks and replacing the stock with HIV+ blood, or injecting people with syringes filled with same.

Fair comments Scoot.

But you surely must accept that; if I know I have a disease, and I am about to embark on an act which I know will transmit that disease, then I should, morally, protect any other person from it?

If we set aside the legal issue, what are the moral responsibilities?

Surely someone with knowledge of their HIV + status has a greater moral responsibility on them? Isn’t the fact that some people do not live up to this moral responsibility the very reason that the justice system becomes involved?

I guess I am just lucky that I am of an age where the majority of my random, unsafe fucking was done before HIV.

I only had to worry about herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, crabs and the like.

I did get Hep C at one stage, but that was before it was tested for or even recognised by the medical profession.

I only know that I had had it because when I gave blood a number of years ago after it the Red Cross took extra because I had developed Hep-C anti-bodies.

Thank fuck for that. I told the docs there was something wrong with me, was it my fault they hadn't caught up with it yet?

As for Zaburoni, he should be taken to trial for every woman he fucked after he knew he was positive. What a complete arse.

Moral responsibility Gob? Certainly. And the justice system sometimes does step in when people do not live up to their moral responsibilities. But to criminalize immoral actions is not the answer. Indeed, promoting persona responsbility to protect onself when one doesn't know one's partner well is.

And FWIW, unprotected sexual contact with an infected individual does not always result in transmission of the virus; I don't know what the % transmission rate is, but it is far from 100%.

Gob wrote:Fair comments Scoot.

But you surely must accept that; if I know I have a disease, and I am about to embark on an act which I know will transmit that disease, then I should, morally, protect any other person from it?

If we set aside the legal issue, what are the moral responsibilities?

Many people (at least in the states) can be quite irresponsible. I recall the past winter's H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) containment campaign; asking everyone to keep their hands clean; to wear masks if they were ill or just stay home! It seemed to me at the time, a lot of people still went out in public if they were sick and didn't even bother with the masks. So, a great many people are morally irresponsible when it comes to other people's health.

As it is, I can't find any news that states, Mr. Zaburoni knew he was HIV positive.

Oh wait, I'm wrong; found a source that says he's been positive since 1997.

I'm going to start suing folks that cough and don't cover...

Now, the Japanese are very health responsible; they make being sick fashionable;

Big RR wrote:Moral responsibility Gob? Certainly. And the justice system sometimes does step in when people do not live up to their moral responsibilities. But to criminalize immoral actions is not the answer.

But surely injury due to immoral actions deserves recompense?

Indeed, promoting persona responsbility to protect onself when one doesn't know one's partner well is.

Yep, it's 50:50 until you and your partner have been tested.

And FWIW, unprotected sexual contact with an infected individual does not always result in transmission of the virus; I don't know what the % transmission rate is, but it is far from 100%.

But much higher than 50:50

loCAtek wrote:

Gob wrote:Fair comments Scoot.

But you surely must accept that; if I know I have a disease, and I am about to embark on an act which I know will transmit that disease, then I should, morally, protect any other person from it?

If we set aside the legal issue, what are the moral responsibilities?

Many people (at least in the states) can be quite irresponsible. I recall the past winter's H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) containment campaign; asking everyone to keep their hands clean; to wear masks if they were ill or just stay home! It seemed to me at the time, a lot of people still went out in public if they were sick and didn't even bother with the masks. So, a great many people are morally irresponsible when it comes to other people's health.

As it is, I can't find any news that states, Mr. Zaburoni knew he was HIV positive.

I work in an Emergency Centre last winter with the H1N1 virus was an absolute nightmare! People have no manners anymore...they cough and sneeze all over you. When we asked people to either cover their noses and mouths with their hands we got abuse, dirty looks and one patient even had the audacity to complain about a co worker saying it was rude for her to ask that!! People no longer teach their kids to catch their coughs and sneezes!
Its the lack of thought that pisses me off....Dosn't matter if i get the swine flu I am a healthy person, however I would have taken that home to a then 2 year old child who could have contracted it! i don't give a shit if your kids crying and dosn't wanna put the mask on. Put one on yaself and make it a game and make the fucker put it on!!

Many a time under my breath I have threatened to staple a mask to a persons face if they keep taking it off to talk to me!

One of the guys I work with had someone sneeze on him...and promptly cold-cocked the guy, laid him out on the sidewalk. Works for me.

dam strait

lol would love to do that with some fuckwits that come in the department "sick". However I do need my job!

Big RR wrote:
Moral responsibility Gob? Certainly. And the justice system sometimes does step in when people do not live up to their moral responsibilities. But to criminalize immoral actions is not the answer.

But surely injury due to immoral actions deserves recompense?

Recompense? Quite likely; because one's neglgient or deliberate behavior led to the injury, the victim may well deserve some recompense (compensation) from the person injuring him or her. But this is why we have a civil law system--to provide comepnsation to those injured. It is not the province of criminal law to do this; criminal law is directed toward removing the offender from society and/or punishing/rehabilitating him or her. The criminal sanction is a serious one, and I think there should be a high bar to insitituting it.