[ case ]FACTS: The complainants consented to unprotected sexual intercourse, but did not know that the defendant was HIV positive. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that they did not consent to the transmission of the HIV virus, and emphasised the 'critical distinction between taking a risk of the various, potentially adverse and possibly problematic consequences of sexual intercourse, and giving an informed consent to the risk of infection with a fatal disease'. The court applied Dica, and confirmed that for consent to the risks of contracting HIV to be a defence, the complainant's consent must be an informed consent.
The court also held that, in cases where consent did provide a defence to an offence against the person, an honest belief in consent would also provide a defence. In this case, there was no evidence upon which the jury could have drawn the inference that the defendant honestly believed that any of the complainants had consented to the risk of contracting HIV.
Answer
R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706
Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
[ case ]FACTS: The complainants consented to unprotected sexual intercourse, but did not know that the defendant was HIV positive. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that they did not consent to the transmission of the HIV virus, and emphasised the 'critical distinction between taking a risk of the various, potentially adverse and possibly problematic consequences of sexual intercourse, and giving an informed consent to the risk of infection with a fatal disease'. The court applied Dica, and confirmed that for consent to the risks of contracting HIV to be a defence, the complainant's consent must be an informed consent.
The court also held that, in cases where consent did provide a defence to an offence against the person, an honest belief in consent would also provide a defence. In this case, there was no evidence upon which the jury could have drawn the inference that the defendant honestly believed that any of the complainants had consented to the risk of contracting HIV.
Answer
?
Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
[ case ]FACTS: The complainants consented to unprotected sexual intercourse, but did not know that the defendant was HIV positive. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that they did not consent to the transmission of the HIV virus, and emphasised the 'critical distinction between taking a risk of the various, potentially adverse and possibly problematic consequences of sexual intercourse, and giving an informed consent to the risk of infection with a fatal disease'. The court applied Dica, and confirmed that for consent to the risks of contracting HIV to be a defence, the complainant's consent must be an informed consent.
The court also held that, in cases where consent did provide a defence to an offence against the person, an honest belief in consent would also provide a defence. In this case, there was no evidence upon which the jury could have drawn the inference that the defendant honestly believed that any of the complainants had consented to the risk of contracting HIV.
Answer
R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706 FACTS: The complainants consented to unprotected sexual intercourse, but did not know that the defendant was HIV positive. HELD: The Court of Appeal held that they did not consent to the
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.