R v Dica [2004] QB 1257 addressed the issue of grievous bodily harm being inflicted when HIV or other sexual diseases are transmitted. The key distinction in this case was the application of consent as a defence under Sections 20 and 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA).
Dica, the defendant, was aware of his HIV-positive status and engaged in sexual relations with two women who were subsequently diagnosed with HIV. Dica was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm under Section 20 of the OAPA. The judge had directed the jury to convict even if the women were aware of Dica's condition.
Upon appeal, Dica argued that the women knew of his HIV-positive status. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial. Judge LJ, in delivering the judgment, clarified several important points:
- Consent to sexual intercourse does not extend to consent to the risk of sexually transmitted diseases if such a risk was concealed.
- Consent is not a defence to a charge of deliberate or intentional infection of HIV under Section 18 of the OAPA, based on the precedent set in R v Brown [1994]. However, this charge was not alleged in the present case.
- Consent is a valid defence to an offence under Section 20 of the OAPA for recklessly transmitting HIV through sexual intercourse.
Judge LJ justified the defence of consent to the risk of infection based on principles of personal autonomy, respect for private life, and the impracticality of enforcement. This case highlighted the nuanced application of consent in cases involving the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and the varying implications under different Sections of the OAPA.
Check out our exam-focused Criminal Law notes now.
Subscribe to UOL Case Bank for more exclusive content and case summaries.
