Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

R v Adaye

303 words (1 pages) Case Summary

16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

R v Adaye (2004) unreported

Should the reckless and/or intentional transmission of HIV be deemed a criminal offence, and if so, which offence.


The defendant had been warned by a doctor in Africa who had been treating him for sexually transmitted infections generally that he was at high risk of having already contracted HIV and thus ought take a medical test to determine whether he was HIV positive. The defendant failed to do so and proceeded to recklessly engage in sexual intercourse with another, resultantly giving them HIV.


Can a person be charged with having recklessly transmitted HIV to another where they did not have actual knowledge of their HIV positive status, but rather ‘second degree’ knowledge or wilful blindness as to the matter.


The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges brought against him and the Court found that one did not require actual knowledge, but rather it sufficed that the defendant had been aware that they ‘knew it was highly likely, if not certain’ that they were HIV positive, as per Lynch J. This judgment is considered informative in supplementing other recent case law on HIV transmission, most notably R v Dica (Mohammed) (2004) EWCA Crim 1103, which confirmed that an individual can be found guilty of grievous bodily harm under s. 20 for recklessly transmitting HIV to another via sexual intercourse, and that the victim’s consent to intercourse could not be equated with consent or acceptance of a risk of infection. The impact of R v Adaye may subsequently be that a charge of GBH may be brought where the defendant has only ‘second degree’ knowledge of the harm they may be causing.

Words: 278

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles