Accused rapist wanted to give men HIV, court hears

Adam Hall is on trial at Newcastle Crown Court

An alleged rapist deliberately infected seven young men with HIV, a court has been told.

Adam Hall, from Donwell in Washington, knew he was HIV positive but did not make other men aware, some of whom he raped, prosecutors told Newcastle Crown Court.

Opening the case to jurors, prosecutor Kama Melly KC said Mr Hall, who was diagnosed in 2010, "knew precisely what he was doing" and enjoyed dominating and infecting "young and vulnerable" men, some of whom he met in bars in Newcastle.

The 43-year-old denies raping five men and seven counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.

Ms Melly said Mr Hall "knew very well" he was HIV positive when he had sex with seven men, four of whom he is accused of raping, and "he intended through his actions to transmit that HIV" to them.

She said the "reality was" that none of the men were "made aware" by Mr Hall he had HIV.

'Well aware of treatment'

Ms Melly said Mr Hall would target "young and vulnerable" men and "enjoyed the dominance" and "sex without consent" while keeping his "true HIV status" secret.

She said he "knew precisely what he was doing when he passed this virus on".

The first complainant alleged he had been repeatedly raped at Mr Hall's home in 2015 after the pair met in a bar, the court heard, and reported it to police several weeks later after seeing a post on social media saying his alleged attacker was HIV positive.

The man, who did not contract HIV, later said he did not want to proceed with the prosecution but contacted officers again after hearing Mr Hall was being investigated for other offences in 2024, Ms Melly said.

The second complainant accused Mr Hall of raping him and giving him HIV in 2016, the court heard, when they went to Mr Hall's home after they had been drinking together in a bar in Newcastle.

Ms Melly said Mr Hall would not dispute having HIV at the relevant times or having sex with some of the men, but would contest the "circumstances of the sexual interactions" and "raise the issue of consent".

The court heard HIV could be passed on through bodily fluids such as blood, semen and breast milk, but not through people spitting, sneezing, coughing or kissing.

Ms Melly said 95% of HIV positive people in the UK were on "effective treatment" meaning their viral load, the amount of HIV in their system, was so low they were deemed "undetectable" and therefore not infectious.

She said Mr Hall was "not taking the necessary" and "strict regime" of treatment to remain "undetectable".

'Been told of risks'

Ms Melly said tests had been done on the HIV strains found in Mr Hall and the complainants, a process known as phylogenetic analysis.

She said the test could say with certainty someone had not passed on the relevant strain, but it could not prove a person was the transmitter.

Ms Melly said the analysis showed Mr Hall could "not be excluded" as the transmitter - the strain found in the complainants being "consistent" with Mr Hall's - but the prosecution would "rely on additional factual evidence to make the case" he was "the person responsible for each of the complainants' HIV infections".

Ms Melly said since his diagnosis in 2010, healthcare professionals had frequently discussed with him the risks of transmitting the disease, told him of the need to inform sexual partners and advised him about the importance of taking his medications.

They also specifically talked to him about issues, including the legal ramifications, in 2014 after it was alleged he had not told a man he had sex with about his diagnosis, which Mr Hall denied.

'They're telling the truth'

Medical notes showed Mr Hall telling health staff he was "well aware" of the issues and was being "open with sexual partners" about his status, the court heard.

Ms Melly said while there were periods when Mr Hall's viral load was kept suppressed at an "undetectable" level, medial professionals also raised concerns at times that he was not taking his medication and was missing regular appointments for testing.

The court heard Mr Hall moved between different clinics in Sunderland and Newcastle and would tell staff he was not taking his daily medication due to his "busy lifestyle".

With regards to the rape allegations, Ms Melly said Mr Hall took advantage of the men and knew they had not given or were unable to give consent to sex.

She said there were "elements of consistency" in the accounts given by the complainants, adding: "That's because [they] are telling the truth about how Adam Hall behaved".

Ms Melly said people may think they were agreeing to be harmed, for example in sadomasochistic sexual encounters where they were "wanting it to occur", but legally no one could consent to the level of harm Mr Hall was accused of inflicting.

The prosecutor also said drugs were available as an "emergency measure" if someone found there was a risk they could have been exposed to the virus, for example because a condom had split during intercourse, but "they really should be taken as soon as possible" and "ideally within 24 hours".

The trial continues.