R v Dica
A person who knows he is HIV positive and recklessly infects a sexual partner who did not know of his condition can be guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm.
Facts
Mr Dica knew that he was HIV positive. He had unprotected sexual intercourse with two women who did not know of his condition, and both became infected with HIV. He was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The judge had ruled that the women's consent to sexual intercourse was irrelevant, following R v Brown.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, because the judge had been wrong to withdraw the issue of consent from the jury. Judge LJ said that a person can be guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm by recklessly transmitting a serious disease through consensual sexual intercourse, overruling the old decision in R v Clarence (1888). However, if the victim knew of the risk and consented to it, the defendant would not be guilty, because consent to the risk of infection is a defence, unlike in Brown. The question was whether the women had consented to the risk of infection, not merely to intercourse. Mr Dica was convicted again at the retrial.
Related cases on non-fatal offences against the person
- Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (Michael) [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1571
- JCC (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331
- Logdon v Director of Public Prosecutions [1976] Crim LR 121
- R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560
- R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846, [2004] 2 Cr App R 6
- R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212
- R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689
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.
