R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706

Court of Appeal

Facts: In a case similar to R v Dica, the defendant (D), knowing that he was HIV-positive, engaged in unprotected sexual activity with three women. The women were unaware of his condition and contracted HIV. D claimed that he honestly believed that the women had consented to the risk of infection. He argued that his belief in their consent was honest, albeit unreasonable, because they had consented to the sexual activity.

Held: The Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction under s20 OAPA, emphasizing that for there to be valid consent, the victim must be aware of all material risks, including the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD). The court held that D’s concealment of his HIV status vitiated the consent of the women. Furthermore, D’s belief in consent had to be reasonable and informed, not merely honest.

💡Levelup: This case reinforced the principles established in Dica, highlighting that genuine consent must be informed consent. It further clarified that an honest but unreasonable belief in consent is not a defence when the risk of serious harm, such as disease transmission, is involved. This case closed any potential loopholes left by Dica regarding an "honest belief" defence.