R v B
Failing to disclose HIV positive status does not in itself vitiate consent to sexual intercourse for the offence of rape.
Facts
B had sexual intercourse with a woman without telling her that he was HIV positive. She had not asked about his HIV status. He was convicted of rape, on the basis that the jury was directed that his failure to disclose his HIV status could be relevant to whether she consented.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Latham LJ said that a defendant's failure to disclose that he is HIV positive does not mean that the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse for the purposes of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The complainant consented to the act of intercourse, and the defendant's HIV status was relevant to the risk of infection, which could be dealt with under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, following R v Dica, but not to the question of consent to the sexual act itself.
Related cases on sexual offences and consent
- Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)
- R (F) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), [2014] QB 581
- R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804, [2008] QB 131
- R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527
- R v H [2005] EWCA Crim 732, [2005] 1 WLR 2005
- R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699, [2008] 1 WLR 2582
- R v Lawrance [2020] EWCA Crim 971, [2020] 1 WLR 5025
- R v Linekar [1995] QB 250
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
