Legal Case Summary
R v Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103
Criminal – Assault Inflicting Grievous bodily harm – Transmitting disease through consensual sexual intercourse
Facts
The defendant, Mohamed Dica was charged with inflicting two counts of grievous bodily harm under s 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The defendant was charged on the basis that while knowing he was HIV positive, he had unprotected sexual intercourse with two women who were unaware of his infection. Both women were infected with HIV.
Issue
The question for the court was whether the complainants were consenting to the risk of infection with HIV when they consented to sexual intercourse with defendant. The court found that given the complainants had consensually agreed to unprotected sexual intercourse, they were therefore accepting the risk of such acts.
Decision / Outcome
Judge LJ analysed the case of R v Clarence (1889) 22 QB 23, finding that its reasoning behind the decision to quash the conviction under s 20 no longer had no continuing relevance in today’s law. R v Clarence had not considered the issue of consent because consent to sexual intercourse was assumed to have been given at the beginning of marriage. The court distinguished a number of cases where sexual violence had been consented to but had found to be unlawful given its nature and subsequent harm caused to the participant. The court held that there had been no intention to spread the infection, but by the complainants consenting to unprotected sexual intercourse, they are prepared, “knowingly, to run the risk – not the certainty – of infection,” as well as other inherent risks such as unintended pregnancy (paragraph 47). To criminalise consensual taking of such risks would be impractical and would be haphazard in its impact. The consent to risk provided a defence under s 20, resulting in the conviction being quashed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the decision in R v Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103. The core legal principles established in the case — that informed consent to the risk of HIV transmission during sexual intercourse can provide a defence to a charge under s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and that R v Clarence (1889) was no longer good authority on this point — remain part of English law.
Readers should be aware of subsequent developments. In R v Dica itself, a retrial was ordered; on retrial, Dica was convicted. More significantly, the Court of Appeal revisited the consent issue in R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706, which confirmed and refined the principle from Dica: consent must be informed and conscious, meaning a complainant’s general consent to unprotected intercourse will not amount to consent to the risk of infection if the defendant had concealed his HIV-positive status. Konzani is an important companion case that students should read alongside Dica.
There have been no subsequent statutory changes to s 20 of the 1861 Act that affect the position described. The Law Commission has at various points considered reform of the offences against the person framework, but no relevant legislation has been enacted. The article remains broadly accurate as a summary of Dica, but should be read together with Konzani for a complete picture of this area of law.
