Needless needle nuisances in Nepal

On 20 June 2019, one of the national dailies in Nepal reported a case where a woman was attacked with a pointed object. The victim stated that a man on a motorcycle attacked her while she was walking her dog in the late evening with a sharp, pointed needle-like object. Although the puncture mark was not obvious, she was left with much pain.

These attacks were unheard of in the past. The first incident, as claimed by the media, is reported to be around mid-April in 2019. At least eight women have been attacked since then. The incident was much discussed on social media. There is a fear of the object being a syringe infected by microorganisms. There is a panic among the people especially women. Although the victims received post exposure prophylaxis, they have to wait for at least three months to find out if they have acquired infections like human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or hepatitis B.

When all these cases are analysed it could be concluded that all the perpetrators are men, often riding motorbikes, usually during late evening hours. The targeted population are young female pedestrians who are alone. As these reported incidents were from different areas, it was assumed that the perpetrators are different and part of a common gang.

Although syringe prick attacks are new in Nepal, internet searches show them having been reported in the late 1980s. During the preliminary phases of discovery of the HIV virus in 1981, it was believed that this blood borne illness spread through blood among drug abusers who shared syringes. Due to the chaos caused by the incurable disease, syringes containing blood were used as a threatening weapon during robberies by drug addicts. In November 1989, 10 teenage girls were arrested in New York City for numerous unprovoked pin prick attacks. The time chosen was during evening hours and the victims were unsuspecting white women. There was a fear among the victims that the needles were infected with HIV infected blood and there was a chance of transmission of the disease. The health officials then assured the victims that there was virtually no chance of acquiring the disease by the victims. ¹ However, on 22 July 1990 an Australian prison guard was jabbed in the buttocks with a syringe containing HIV-infected blood by an HIV-infected inmate. The victim was tested positive for HIV and died eight years later. ² The most notorious case of such unpleasant events occurred in Dublin, on an English tour guide on 30 August 1996. ³ American physician Richard Schmidt, in 1998, injected his former lover, a nurse, with blood obtained from his patient who had HIV and hepatitis B, telling her that it was a vitamin injection. The physician was later convicted by the court for second degree murder and sentenced to 50 years of life imprisonment.

The alleged perpetrator in one of the incidents in Nepal was arrested following information from the victims and CCTV footage. In police custody, he said he had used nails and not syringes. He also stated he pricked for fun rather than to transmit disease.

Although it is claimed the HIV virus will not survive more than a couple of minutes outside the body if the needle has dried, there is still a remote possibility of transmitting infections. Even though the injuries sustained by the victims are trivial, the terrified victims need to wait three more months to know if they are serologically negative after the incident. The mental distress they have to bear during this period is immeasurable. The court will subsequently release the perpetrator of the alleged crime on cash bail soon after the incident.

Under Article 105 of the Criminal Code of Nepal, if any person transmits HIV or hepatitis B virus to another person with malicious intent (both the components actus reus and mens rea are required), then the perpetrator can be slammed with 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 rupees (£1 = 136.33 Rs).⁴ In cases where there was no intent and the transmission of infection occurred as a result of a negligent act (only actus reus present) then the fine will be reduced to 30,000 to 50,000 rupees and imprisonment will range from three to five years.

From the victim’s perspective, it is difficult to prove whether the alleged weapon was a syringe needle or an ordinary nail. The incident occurred during late evening hours and the perpetrator was on a motorbike and jabbed with the weapon then fled. The prick mark itself would be faint or not noticeable to be considered as evidence. The prick cannot be categorised as a life-threatening or dangerous injury if the serology is negative. The emotional distress of the victim without clear evidence is not sufficient to convict the perpetrator – which leaves matters unresolved for the victims and frees the attackers to strike again.