Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Gigolo spreads the man love and more

By Kramer - 20 January 2008 35

The ABC reports local male prostitute, Hector Scott of Kingston (hello Google), has appeared in court on charges of knowingly infecting someone with a STD. Allegedly, even though he knew (or should have known) that he had a STD he continued his “service”, and he was also operating without being registered.

According to this CT story the respective maximum penalties are 6 months jail and a $5000 fine, and 12 months jail and a $10,000 fine. I can understand that a gigolo has to earn a living, but considering he could be effectively ending someone’s life, shouldn’t the penalties be higher? Perhaps the same penalty as manslaughter, and maybe also castration?

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
35 Responses to
Gigolo spreads the man love and more
Mr Evil 12:12 pm 21 Jan 08

Stiff penalty – he had it coming to him, and he should take it like a man!

Ari 11:35 am 21 Jan 08

He should get a stiff penalty.

Holden Caulfield 9:40 am 21 Jan 08

Publish whatever STD this guy has got, and then comment.

Not that it will matter, he’ll get a slap on the wrist. Afterall, in this town you can steal a car, kill someone, and walk away.

A slap on the wrist?

That’s a bit limp.

dmac 9:16 am 21 Jan 08

I am wondering how many faces went pale across the breakfast table on Saturday morning…

Kramer 10:11 pm 20 Jan 08

Simbo – I’m not trying to start a lynch posse, I’m just suggesting that the laws & penalties need to be reviewed – or at least discussed.

BTW who ever suggested anyone on RiotACT had any “journalistic responsibility”? 🙂

pierce 9:17 pm 20 Jan 08

Anyone deliberately spreading STIs is a lowlife – but this has nothing to do with being a sex worker.

Sex workers statistically have lower rates of infection than the general population – I mean, think about it, their bits are their livelihoods.

boomacat 8:19 pm 20 Jan 08

People need to take responsibility for their own s-xual health. Of course none of us are perfect and we all take stupid risks from time to time, but if a person has unprotected s-x with a s-x worker then the chance of contracting an STD is pretty obvious.

Pandy – I disagree that this is g@y bashing, a s-x worker allegedly knowingly transmitting an STD would be make news irrespective of his/her gender/s-xuality. Does the news article actually say it was a homos-xual worker?

And with regards to the offence a person convicted of such conduct would be liable for, in NSW there is a “causing a previous bodily disease” offence tailored to those kinds of circumstances, there might even be a similar provision in an ACT health Act, or it might be that it would fall within the ordinary “GBH” offence, I read something about it once but I couldn’t be bothered doing the research to provide a proper answer on that. Blah blah blah, sorry brain is like swiss cheese today.

Thumper 7:38 pm 20 Jan 08

Publish whatever STD this guy has got, and then comment.

Not that it will matter, he’ll get a slap on the wrist. Afterall, in this town you can steal a car, kill someone, and walk away.

smokey4 7:36 pm 20 Jan 08

That court order is only the ACT? Maybe someone from Qbn can fill us on the details before this guy gets the ACT tar and feathers applied.

idea_authority 7:19 pm 20 Jan 08

Even if only the major STDs like AIDS and Hep can lead to fatality or chronic illness, many of them can have long tern effects on health. Some can cause lasting effects to ones reproductive system, even leading to miscarriage which one could consider to be ending the life of an unborn child.

But manslughter is an odd thing to charge this person with as it would normally apply to actually ending someones life, not just infecting them with an illness. If its AIDS or one of the big ones, then I think depending on the victims condition and prognoses, perhaps manslaughter is appropriate. If it is a mor minor one that could cause long term health effects, the Actual grevous bodily harm would be more in order. I do think the law should be changed to actually specify such a thing as a crime and provide solutions for the courts that better suit the range of results of someone deliberately or negligently infecting someone with an STD.

Ingeegoodbee 7:07 pm 20 Jan 08

I read over the weekend that the actual disease couldn’t be reported because of a court imposed gag, so it seems that there’s some judicial reason for keeping people in the dark.

Pandy 6:50 pm 20 Jan 08

This is a case of gay bashing.

Would not be reported if it was a woman.

GnT 5:47 pm 20 Jan 08

I don’t think the penalty should be the same as manslaughter, since STDs rarely end someone’s life.

simbo 3:10 pm 20 Jan 08

The announcement did come with his trading names (he’s advertised under the names of “Adam” and “Josh”), and there’s a hotline (1800 678 805) for anybody who’s dealt with him and is concerned about what the possibilities may be.

Perhaps, Kramer, informing the affected public about a dramatic issue might be considered a more important journalistic responsibility than trying to start a lynching posse?

fhakk 2:12 pm 20 Jan 08

So what’s this guy got? This ‘serious sexually transmitted disease’ could be AIDS. Or Chlamydia. What is it??? I can’t find the information anywhere

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site