The women in Dica's case could not give informed consent to something they were both ignorant to. From this, it can be seen that informed consent can act as a defense. Equally, the defendant may also plead consent if he honestly believed in the victim's consent.
Due to the decision made in Dica (2004), the law recognises that there can be implied consent to STD's. However, law critics state that there should be a new law on the risk of transmission.
In a similar case- R v Clarence, Clarence had sexual intercourse with his wife, knowing, although she did not, that he had gonorrhoea. His wife contracted gonorrhoea as a result and suffered GBH. He was convicted under s20 of the OAPA 1861.
Similarly, in Konzani (2005), the defendant, who was HIV+, had sexual intercourse with several women. The women became infected as a result and he was convicted under s20 of OAPA 1861.
Comments
No comments have yet been made