R v Clarence [1888] 22 QBD 23

Court of Appeal

Facts: D, knowing that he had a sexually transmitted disease (STD), had sexual intercourse with his wife without informing her of his condition. He was subsequently charged with causing bodily harm under s20 and s47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The court had to determine whether the wife’s consent to intercourse was vitiated by D's failure to disclose his condition.

Held: The Court of Appeal quashed D’s conviction, ruling that the wife's consent to intercourse was valid, despite her lack of knowledge about D’s STD. The court suggested that for s20 to apply, there must be a direct application of force, which was not present in this case.

💡Levelup: R v Clarence was later overruled by cases like R v Dica (2004), which recognized that knowingly transmitting a disease during sexual intercourse could amount to grievous bodily harm (GBH). This case represents the older legal approach, which placed less emphasis on informed consent in the context of sexual offences involving disease transmission.