Dica, R. v

Dica, R. v

The reasoning in R v Clarence regarding the necessity of assault and deemed consent is no longer authoritative. Reckless transmission of HIV through consensual sexual intercourse can constitute an offence under s.20 if the victim did not consent to the risk of infection. The issue of whether the complainants consented to the risk should have been left to the jury; the trial judge erred in withdrawing it.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Mohammed Dica
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Grievous Bodily Harm, Reckless Transmission of Disease, Consent in Criminal Law, Sexual Offences
Criminal Law Public Health Law Grievous Bodily Harm Reckless Transmission of Disease Consent in Criminal Law Sexual Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Mohammed Dica

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reckless transmission of HIV through consensual sexual intercourse constitutes an offence under s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
  2. 2 Whether the victim's consent or knowledge of the risk of infection provides a defence to a charge under s.20
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing the issue of consent from the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The reasoning in R v Clarence regarding the necessity of assault and deemed consent is no longer authoritative. Reckless transmission of HIV through consensual sexual intercourse can constitute an offence under s.20 if the victim did not consent to the risk of infection. The issue of whether the complainants consented to the risk should have been left to the jury; the trial judge erred in withdrawing it.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Retrial to take place at the earliest possible date before a High Court Judge at Inner London Crown Court