What is the ratio in R v Dica?

Reckless transmission of HIV constitutes grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861, but informed consent to the risk provides a complete defense.

What did the court decide in R v Dica?

The Court of Appeal held that HIV transmission can be GBH but ordered a retrial on whether the complainants gave informed consent to the risk.

Why is R v Dica important for criminal law?

It established the framework for disease transmission liability while balancing public health with sexual autonomy, remaining the leading authority on consent to risk.

What is the ratio in R v Dica?

Reckless transmission of HIV constitutes grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861, but informed consent to the risk provides a complete defense.

What did the court decide in R v Dica?

The Court of Appeal held that HIV transmission can be GBH but ordered a retrial on whether the complainants gave informed consent to the risk.

Why is R v Dica important for criminal law?

It established the framework for disease transmission liability while balancing public health with sexual autonomy, remaining the leading authority on consent to risk.

Criminal1 min read

R v Dica

[2004] EWCA Crim 1103Court of Appeal2004

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“HIV transmission through unprotected sex constitutes grievous bodily harm offence”

Facts

Mohammed Dica was convicted of two counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm after having unprotected sexual intercourse with two women while knowing he was HIV positive. Neither woman was aware of his HIV status at the time of intercourse, and both subsequently contracted HIV.

Issues

Whether the reckless transmission of HIV through consensual sexual intercourse can constitute the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and whether consent to sexual intercourse constitutes consent to the risk of HIV transmission.

Held

The Court of Appeal held that reckless HIV transmission can constitute inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861. Consent to sexual intercourse does not automatically constitute consent to the risk of HIV transmission. However, informed consent to the risk of transmission would provide a complete defence.

Significance

This landmark decision established the criminality of reckless HIV transmission in English law and clarified the boundaries between consensual sexual activity and criminal harm. It remains the leading authority on disease transmission as grievous bodily harm.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Dica. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103, [2004] QB 1257

Criminal LawOffences Against the PersonSexual OffencesMedical Law

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.