Offences against the Person: Reckless Transmission of HIV
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2005.69.5.389 |
| Date | 01 October 2005 |
| Published date | 01 October 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
In Rogers, it appears that the Court of Appeal held that mere posses-
sion of illegal substances, not per se likely to cause some harm to another,
may not effectively constitute the unlawful act in unlawful act man-
slaughter. The identified offence that embodied the ‘unlawful act’ rested
on s. 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, relating to mali-
ciously administering a noxious substance. This, of course, raises the
conundrum of whether, in Rogers, the appellant was engaged in admin-
istering drugs to another as a principle or a secondary party.
In truth, the law relating to unlawful act manslaughter and assisting
drug-abuse injection is in an absolute mess. The nature of this ‘unlawful
act’ has been approached in a confused manner, as revealed in Cato and
Kennedy. The recent decisions in Kennedy and Dias are palpably incon-
sistent over the issues of causation, voluntariness and assistance in drug-
abuse injection. It is high time for the House of Lords to enter the debate
to point us in the right direction. Confusion reigns supreme. The out-
come in Kennedy was predicated on their Lordships ascribing joint
responsibility/collusion between ‘victim’ and defendant. A differently
constituted Court of Appeal, however, has logically delineated the inde-
pendent action of the drug-taker as a novus actus interveniens. General
principles relating to suggest that the latter outcome is preferable.
Alan Reed
Offences against the Person: Reckless Transmission
of HIV
R vKonzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706
On 14 May 2004 the defendant, then aged 28, was found guilty by a jury
of three counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to s. 20 of the
Offences against the Person Act 1861. The harm concerned was the
transmission of HIV to three women, all of whom had consented to
sexual intercourse with the defendant. The defendant had learnt of his
HIV positive diagnosis in November 2000. He was subsequently in-
formed on several occasions of the risks and consequences of unpro-
tected sexual intercourse. In 2001, the defendant began a relationship
with the first complainant, then 15 years old and a virgin. At no stage
prior to the commencement of sexual relations did he inform her of his
HIV status, and no contraception was used. In late 2001, the first
complainant discovered that she was HIV positive.
The defendant began a relationship with the second complainant in
late 2002. The same pattern was repeated: concealment of his HIV
status, and unprotected intercourse. The second complainant later dis-
covered she was both pregnant and HIV positive, although the child did
not contract HIV.
Offences against the Person: Reckless Transmission of HIV
389
To continue reading
Request your trial