Daryll Rowe of Edinburgh arrested by Sussex Police accused of putting sexual partners at risk of HIV by deliberately tampering with condoms

The force has also failed to explain why the man cannot be named or his photograph released.

The Argus can today exclusively reveal the man’s name following an investigation which led to his identity being confirmed by officials in his native Scotland.

We also have pictures of the man but have chosen not to release them in case there is any potential risk of prejudicing a future police investigation.

Daryll Rowe, 25, of Edinburgh, was arrested on February 5 on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

He is alleged to have put sexual partners at risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases by deliberately tampering with condoms.

Police will not reveal how long he was kept in custody before being released on bail until April 5.

On Tuesday the council and police both issued a public health warning over the case, but only identified Rowe as being a Scottish-accented man in his twenties - not giving his name.

Tom Scanlon, Director of Public Health in Brighton and Hove, asked any man who may have had sexual contact with a man of this description between October 2015 and mid February 2016 to contact local sexual health services.

Sussex Police have not fully explained why there was a delay of 18 days between the arrest and the public announcement.

A force spokeswoman said on Tuesday: “The man was arrested on the February 5 and since this time we have been investigating the allegations.

“We have also been working with partners to ensure the appropriate support and guidance is available to the local community.”

Requests by The Argus for further information have met with no reply, and neither the police nor Brighton and Hove City Council will confirm when Dr Scanlon was briefed about the case.

Police have said that two men had spoken to officers in relation to the case, and following yesterday’s appeal another has come forward, but police do not know how many men may have been at risk of harm through sexual intercourse.

Sussex Police said that the name was being withheld on the advice of their lawyers, but provided no further information on why that should be the case, nor on when the man was released on bail.

Yesterday a police spokeswoman told The Argus: “We are not releasing any further information unless it helps reduce the risk to the public or aids the investigation.”

QUESTIONS REMAIN IN CASE DESPITE REQUESTS TO FORCE

A SERIES of questions remain unanswered in this case despite repeated requests by The Argus for information from Sussex Police.

Why has Daryll Rowe been released on bail?

The Argus asked Sussex Police when and why Daryll Rowe was released on bail, but police have refused to answer.

In the last of several phone calls yesterday afternoon, a police spokeswoman told The Argus: “We can go round and round on this all day, but you’re not getting anything more out of us,” before hanging up the phone.

Why did the police not name Daryll Rowe?

On Tuesday morning the police identified the man they had arrested as being a Scottish-accented man in his twenties.

They later provided more information but refused The Argus’ repeated requests to release a name or photograph.

A spokeswoman said “We are not releasing a photo or name as identity is an issue”, later saying they had taken advice from lawyers.

Police and press keep the identity of suspects confidential if there is the potential for a court case to be prejudiced by the release of a name, photograph or description.

Typically this relates to cases where a victim may have to pick a suspect out of a line-up, or otherwise identify a suspect, in order to strengthen the prosecution case.

The Argus has asked repeatedly how this could pertain in this case, where any victims must have had intimate sexual contact with the suspect, but we have received no reply.

Specifically, police have refused to explain why the release of Daryll Rowe’s name – without a photograph – could affect a case.

Why did the police not release his photograph – and why hasn’t The Argus?

For the reasons given above, the police have refused to release a picture of Rowe.

They have refused to elaborate on why this could be prejudicial in this case.

Without having been briefed on how the release of a photograph might prejudice an investigation, The Argus has chosen not to print photographs of him.

Why the 18-day delay in informing the public?

Daryll Rowe was arrested on Friday, February 5, but the public warning was not released until Tuesday, February 23.

It was released by Director of Public Health Brighton Tom Scanlon and on the police website, with wording jointly agreed between Mr Scanlon and Sussex Police.

Brighton and Hove City Council press officers briefed news outlets personally early in the morning that the release would be going out.

But no-one can explain why, given the scant detail being given about the suspected offender and the importance of the matter, it was not publicised earlier.

A police spokeswoman said that since the arrest they have been investigating the allegations and working to provide guidance to the community.

In a statement to The Argus, Tom Scanlon said: “There are several clinical sensitivities around this matter; we are not therefore prepared to release any further details of the public health investigation at this point, including the preparation work.’

Who decided to delay, and who decided to release the statement?

Police and the council have repeatedly failed to respond to The Argus’s questions about when Director of Public Health Brighton and Hove Dr Scanlon was informed.

Why put out a warning but not name the man?

The Argus questioned the wisdom of releasing an HIV-related public health statement, which ran the twin risks of generating public distress and implicating every young Scot in Brighton and Hove, by revealing so few details about the man at the centre of the storm.

Police responded by saying that “identification is an issue” and providing additional descriptive details.

They added that another possible victim had come forward following the release.

What information led to Rowe’s arrest?

The Argus has tried to ascertain how strong the case was against Rowe on February 5.

Police have refused to clarify, saying only: “We were alerted about this by Police Scotland and our local partners. This led to the arrest of the suspect.”

Did new information lead to the public health warning?

The Argus asked what, if any, additional information has come to light between February 5 and Tuesday which led to the issuing of the public health warning.

Police did not answer.

Has Daryll Rowe been invited to comment?

The Argus has emailed Daryll Rowe at several email addresses we believe to be his, but at the time of going to print has received no reply.

CRITICAL TO START TREATMENT STRAIGHT AWAY

PEOPLE with HIV in developed countries now enjoy a normal life expectancy when the virus is properly treated, but it is critical to start treatment straight away.

A three-year international drugs trial known as the START study (the strategic timing of antiretroviral treatment) concluded in May 2015 that patients who begin treatment straight away have a 70 per cent lower risk of contracting AIDS-related diseases than those who wait.

When the results of the study were released, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, hailed them as “clear-cut proof that it is of significantly greater health benefit to an HIV-infected person to start antiretroviral therapy sooner rather than later.”

He added: “Moreover, early therapy conveys a double benefit, not only improving the health of individuals but at the same time, by lowering their viral load, reducing the risk they will transmit HIV to others.

In the UK, national guidelines for HIV treatment currently recommend that anyone with HIV who is ready to commit to treatment should start it regardless of their CD4 count (a measure of infected proteins).

HIV treatment works to reduce viral load to undetectable levels.

While this does not mean there is no HIV, it does mean HIV is not able to damage the immune system, and should mean the likelihood of transmitting HIV is extremely low.