“A woman has been charged for throwing away a used hypodermic needle at a fast-food restaurant, which subsequently injured a six-year-old girl.
The girl suffered a needle stick injury to her left thumb on July 22 while she was playing on children’s equipment at the fast food restaurant on Corrimal Street, Wollongong.
The girl told her mother what happened and the needle had to be physically removed from her thumb before the family sought medical advice.
Police reviewed CCTV footage and submitted evidence for DNA analysis.
As a result, a 42-year-old woman from South Wollongong was issued with a court attendance notice for the offence of aggravated littering.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/17/3068422.htm?site=illawarra§ion=news
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/National/2010/11/17/Woman_charged_over_needle_littering_540102.html
There is much news of sharps injury protection generally focusing on US and EU legislation that requires employers to provide safe needles/syringes etc. That is costing $billions, and is clearly money well spent. Despite this, sharps injury continues to occur though the focus of attention is now changing, albeit slowly, to include ancillary and support staff and waste handlers plus those members of the public who encounter discarded drug litter.
Previously under-reported and failing to appear on most sharps injury statistics, injuries to support staff and the public are not declining in incidence, and are possibly increasing as the incidence of IV drug use continues to escalate. Among the healthcare professions, great care is directed to sharps injury prevention though sharps are still carelessly “lost” in laundry and discarded into thin-walled waste sacks intended only for soft wastes.
Prosecutions are rare. Employers do not face penalty for disposal errors that place others at risk nor, with the exception reported here, do individuals feel the penalty of law for dangerously discarding sharps in the environment.
In this case, and offence of aggravated littering, whatever that means, seems reasonably logical but if the child subsequently develops a bloodborne virus infection will the charge be changed to one of GBH or worse?