Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Problem Question

Hello everyone. Can anyone help me with this question.

A who was aware that he was HIV positive had unprotected consensual sexual intercourse with his girlfriend B. As a result, B had contracted the disease. Discuss A's liability

Reply 1

Mimir

Read the sticky for this subforum before posting, thanks.

Reply 2

Pyschh

Original post by Mimir

Read the sticky for this subforum before posting, thanks.

Hi there im self teaching myself As Alevel law I need help with how to answe problem questions for Criminal law and tort law. I've attempted to answer June 2013 past paper question 03 in criminal law I've done the first bit of the question where its says " outline the law relating to the offence of assault, and briefly discuss whether Amir would be guilty of this offence" However, for the second part of the question im stuck i dont know how to answer" briefly discuss what difference, if any, it would have made if Carla had taken Amir’s statement as a joke and had not panicked or jumped from the car" in the way that will score me high marks. Please if you can help me I beg. How would you answer it . Also if you have other materials for section A and B unit2 Law As level AQA in particular please send them to me. I'm very determined to do well my single mother paid alot of money for my exams I really want to do well. Please if you can help me with especially on how to answer problem questions in Criminal Law and Tort law. Thanks in advance, :smile:

Reply 3

RattyAbz04

Original post by yy1234

A would most likely be liable of s20 of the OATPA, if I'm remembering right. There's a case called 'R v Dica' that would be really useful to use because it's pretty much this exact scenario.

Reply 4

RohanYnaik

In the UK the non disclosure of HIV goes toward an assault, In R v Konzani the UKCA held that non-disclosure of HIV vitiates the consent to running the risk of HIV. The judge said regarding consent informed consent is required. So they upheld the reasoning in Dica.

In regard to it being rape the statutory wording in the sexual offences Act 2003 it says intentional depiction as to nature and purpose. In Dica in obiter they talk about how it does not vitiate consent to sex, as the consent was full and conscious, and R v B makes the dica obiter binding. Although you do have to be careful as the act states intentional deception, so it is possible that non-disclosure would fall within this earlier category in these cases. Although the reasoning is based more on interpreting nature and purpose rather than assessing whether it was an intentional deception.

If you wanted you could compare with Canada, depending on what type of question it is.

Reply 5

Notoriety

Original post by RohanYnaik

In the UK the non disclosure of HIV goes toward an assault, In R v Konzani the UKCA [...]

Are you talking about the Court of Appeal? The initialism is EWCA. England & Wales Court of Appeal.

Therefore, to say "in the UK", is wrong. We don't have a UK criminal law.

Reply 6

RohanYnaik

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

Are you talking about the Court of Appeal? The initialism is EWCA. England & Wales Court of Appeal.

Therefore, to say "in the UK", is wrong. We don't have a UK criminal law.

Sorry I was not aware of that I had to cite this case for my legal essay in NZ as we were examining common law in Canda and England on transmission of HIV