R v Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103

Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant (D), Mohammed Dica, knowing he was HIV-positive, engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with two women on separate occasions. Both women consented to sex but were unaware of his condition. D was charged under s20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) for grievous bodily harm (GBH) due to transmitting the HIV virus. D argued that since the women had consented to intercourse, they had also implicitly consented to the risk of infection. He further contended that he did not intend to harm them. The issue before the court was whether the women’s consent to intercourse also extended to the risk of contracting HIV.

Held: The Court of Appeal rejected D’s argument, ruling that the transmission of HIV through unprotected sex could indeed constitute GBH under s20 OAPA. The court found that D could be held liable if he had foreseen the risk of transmitting the virus. Crucially, it was held that consent to intercourse did not automatically imply consent to the risk of infection, particularly when the defendant had failed to inform his sexual partners of his condition.

💡Levelup: This landmark case established that while consent to sex is valid, it does not extend to consent to the risk of infection with a serious disease like HIV unless the person is fully informed of the risk. It expanded the interpretation of s20 OAPA and had significant implications for cases involving the transmission of diseases. This case also overruled the previous decision in R v Clarence (1888), where it was held that consent to intercourse implied consent to the risk of disease.