Landmark case alleges HIV man lied on immigration papers

11.00am

A Ghanaian man accused of lying when he said he did not have HIV is in the middle of a landmark court case for the second time.

Ishmael Asamoah, 38, forged a laboratory report in Australia to stop his fiancee finding out he was infected, the Dominion Post reported today.

The deceit however, destroyed his marriage in 1999 when his pregnant wife discovered she had caught the virus.

Asamoah moved to Auckland a year later and is said to be in a new relationship but his immigration paperwork from 2000 has come back to haunt him.

His former wife made legal history last year when she won $727,437 in damages after suing two Sydney doctors for negligence because they did not tell her Asamoah had tested HIV-positive.

Now the Labour Department has charged him with fraud in a prosecution thought to be the first over medical information supplied in an application for New Zealand residency.

Would-be immigrants are asked if they have Aids or a related condition.

Yesterday, the High Court at Auckland refused to continue name suppression for Asamoah, who will defend his case in a district court hearing on November 8.

His lawyer Colin Amery said Asamoah should not be named because his family's identity was permanently suppressed in Australia.

That case outlined how the couple went for sexually transmitted disease tests before getting married. The woman did not have HIV but Asamoah hid his positive result from her by forging a lab report. She later found out she had contracted the virus when she was pregnant with their first child.

The case put doctor-patient confidentiality under intense legal scrutiny as doctors said they could not divulge patients' HIV status. But the court found they had breached a duty of care toward the woman, even if her husband's deceit was unforeseeable.

Mr Amery said identifying Asamoah in the latest case would mean he could not get a fair trial and it would lead to media invading his privacy and that of his new partner.

Justice Venning said presumption of innocence was a factor when considering suppression and so were open administration of justice, freedom of expression and the right of media to report court proceedings.

The real issue was whether publishing Asamoah's name would prejudice his trial. He had elected trial by judge alone and the hearing was several months away.

Australian suppression orders remained but they did not bind New Zealand courts or media.

- NZPA