HIV Somali man is found guilty of deliberately infecting lovers

[Quite -Storm]

HIV Somali man is found guilty of deliberately infecting lovers

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

15 October 2003

 

A man who knowingly infected two women with HIV has become the first person in more than a century to be convicted of inflicting biological grievous bodily harm.

 

Mohammed Dica, 37, who has three children, persuaded two women to have unprotected sex without telling them he had HIV. He was a refugee from Somalia, but claimed to be a lawyer and to have served as a soldier in the Gulf War. The court heard that he was a practised Lothario who told the women a pack of lies. Doctors say the victims may have no more than 10 years to live.

 

Dica told the first, a university graduate who worked for the United Nations, that he had had a vasectomy and did not need to use protection, and promised the second, a woman from Surrey with two children, that he loved her and wanted her to have his children. When she left her husband to be with him, he disappeared.

 

Dica denied the offences, which took place between 1997 and 2000, and told detectives that both women had known of his condition.

 

Yesterday a jury of six men and six women at Inner London Crown Court took two hours to find him guilty after the prosecution claimed he had "coldly and callously" infected his two lovers with the virus.

 

Judge Nicholas Philpot deferred sentencing until next month but warned Dica he faced a lengthy period in prison. The offences carry a maximum of five years each.

 

Detectives believe there may be other women infected by Dica and asked any who had had a relationship with him to come forward.

 

The case is the first since Charles James Clarence was convicted in 1888 of causing grievous and actual bodily harm after infecting his wife Selina with gonorrhoea. He was cleared on appeal when the House of Lords ruled that passing a sexually transmitted disease during consensual sex did not constitute an assault.

 

The same argument was used by Dica's lawyers. They said that as both women had agreed to sex, no assault had been committed. But Judge Philpot decided the law had moved on since 1888 as a result of a succession of cases which had chipped away at the Clarence position.

 

In 1997, Anthony Burstow, 36, was convicted of inflicting psychiatric grievous bodily harm on a woman with stalking and telephone calls. On appeal, the Lords decided the Crown did not have to prove battery to secure a bodily harm conviction.

 

Yesterday's conviction which follows the line of a similar case in Scotland two years ago. In March 2001, Stephen Kelly, 33, was found guilty of "culpable and reckless conduct" for passing HIV to his girlfriend.

 

Dica's lawyers said they would appeal, and the case is likely to go to the Lords.

 

The National Aids Trust criticised the verdict. It said: "Treating cases like this as a criminal offence will not prevent such incidents. People should feel able to disclose their HIV status without fear of rejection or discrimination."

14 October 2003 23:36

 

 

 

 

 

 

'He played with my life'

 

 

Deborah had thought Dica was the man of her dreams

One of the women "deliberately" infected with HIV by Mohammed Dica has said her "sentence has just begun".

Dica was found guilty on Tuesday of two counts of "biological" grievous bodily harm.

 

The woman, who can only be identified as Deborah, first met Dica at a south London nightclub.

 

"I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time," she said.

 

"He destroyed my life. If he had been honest from the beginning I'd never have had an affair with him. I'd have run a mile."

 

When the couple met Deborah was in a long-term relationship, but she thought Dica was the man of her dreams. Within weeks they became lovers.

 

I still loved this man, even though I knew he'd given it to me

 

Deborah

The father-of-three told Deborah he was separated from his wife, and pursued her with endless declarations of love, marriage and children.

 

"He was like a prince in shining armour, saying all the right things. He was a lawyer, a Gulf War veteran, and so on.

 

"I was going through a bad time. He was there, getting me through things."

 

The woman, who is in her 30s, said Dica convinced her to leave her partner, but as soon as she did he disappeared.

 

Around this time her health started to deteriorate and she soon discovered she was HIV positive.

 

 

Dica said both women knew he was HIV positive

Deborah said that at first she could not think straight, but knew she had to find the man who had infected her.

 

Then one of Dica's friends confided to her that he was seriously ill in a hospital.

 

When the mother-of-two tracked him down, he claimed doctors could not diagnose his condition.

 

"I thought he really needs help and it would help the doctors and him if I told him. He held his head in his hands and said, 'Oh my God, I can't believe it'."

 

He said he would take a test and two weeks later Dica told Deborah it was positive.

 

"I still loved this man, even though I knew he'd given it to me. I thought he'd done so unknowingly.

 

'Felt dead inside'

 

"But that couldn't have been further from the truth."

 

The couple resumed their relationship, until Deborah discovered Dica had also infected his former girlfriend.

 

"I felt sick. I felt dead inside.

 

"I had to stop this man ruining more lives. He played with my life and he's destroyed it.

 

"This has been a tragic part of my life. He passed on this infection deliberately.

 

"Those who have it confirmed are obliged by human decency to make sure you don't spread that tragedy to others.

 

'Justice done'

 

"I've often wondered why he did this. Maybe it was revenge, but only he would know this.

 

"But I know he's got no remorse. He's only interested in himself."

 

Deborah was "very low" in the first year after diagnosis, but said reporting Dica to the police made her stronger.

 

"I know this is not over for me, but today we have seen the law really is there to support us.

 

"My sentence has just begun. But I can now move on, knowing that justice has been done."

 

 

More Stories

 

 

More Stories

[J.Lee]

"I still loved this man, even though I knew he'd given it to me. I thought he'd done so unknowingly.

:eek:

I don't get shocked easily but this is interesting piece here. first of all let me thank god for blessing me with common sense and a conscience that steers me right if and when I commit even a minor sin.Mansha'allah for my religion for I don't have to worry about this happening to me. I'm a womanist to the heart but those women are an embarrassment excuse my rhetoric joggin but they are about dumb as a lamp post.

that he had had a vasectomy and did not need to use protection

so he can't have kids that don't mean he can't give you diseases. don't they have brains.sh*t lax kaniini cabtay miyaa(excuse my incorrect somali)

Akhas as for abkow I don't know if he did it knowingly or not but he is an insolent son of a good hooyo who is probably crying her eyes out due to his dishonesty.

[Nephissa]

Subhaana laah

[Faheema.]

Man convicted of 'biological' GBH wins retrial

 

 

A man jailed for eight years for inflicting "biological" grievous bodily harm by infecting two lovers with HIV has won the right to a retrial.

 

 

Appeal: Mohammed Dica

 

The Court of Appeal in London quashed Mohammed Dica's convictions, but refused to release him on bail pending retrial in about six weeks' time.

 

The appeal hearing judges ruled that the judge at the original trial should not have withdrawn from the jury whether the women consented to intercourse, knowing Dica was HIV positive.

 

Dica, 38, a Somalian asylum seeker from Mitcham, Surrey, was found guilty in October last year. He came to Britain in 1993 and was diagnosed HIV positive two years later.

 

The case made legal history when he became the first person in 137 years to be successfully prosecuted in England and Wales for transmitting a sexual disease

[Arwa]

Yuck!

 

This is Freaky!!!

 

Salaam

[Rahima]

Acuudu bilaah.

 

I hope he repents and may Allah then forgive him of his sins.

[NGONGE]

Looking at his face though, you wonder how the hell he managed to get THREE women to sleep with him! :eek: :eek:

[Maymuunah]

^^^^LoL@ngone are you implying he is too ugly to sleep with three cajuusoyiin.

Subxanalaahi.this is strange walaahi..I bet non of them is somali..

[NGONGE]

I’m not implying anything. I don’t need to. I saw his photo.

:rolleyes:

His wife is Somali but his girlfriends are not. Hmm, I wonder if he transmitted the disease to her and his kids! I hope not.

[Valenteenah.]

^^ His wife is Muslim, but not Somali...I remember reading somewhere that she's Ugandan...or was it Kenyan? I cant rightly recall.

 

Anywho, I'm disappointed he has been granted a re-trial. I thought the original 8 years were too good for him. And now he might get even less. Damn...

 

Even death is too good for that person. :mad:

[Qaxooti Kombuter Heshay]

lol@ngonge...different strokes for different folks?

 

Yes but it was said that he infected upto 11 women, but only 3 came forward? And yes Somalis were in the list too.

[Arwa]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Looking at his face though, you wonder how the hell he managed to get THREE women to sleep with him! :eek: :eek:

loooool

 

I should'nt be saying this but

 

I agree to an extent , how did they accept?? :confused:

[Faheema.]

Maybe he had Charm invisible to the naked eye?

 

Then again looking at that mug shot I retract.

[Sophist]

Classic legal hoopla boodla! The Law is ***

 

--

 

RIME — Assault — Grievous bodily harm — Defendant infecting complainants with sexually transmitted disease through consensual sexual intercourse — Whether capable of amounting to offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm — Offences against the Person Act 1861, s 20

 

R v Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103

 

CA: Lord Woolf CJ, Judge LJ and Forbes J: 5 May 2004

 

A person could be convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm if he knew that he was suffering from a serious sexual disease and he recklessly transmitted that disease through consensual sexual intercourse to a person who was unaware of, and did not consent to, the risk of infection.

 

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division so held in allowing an appeal by Mohammed Dica against his conviction at Inner London Crown Court (Judge Philpot and a jury) on 14 October 2003 on two counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, for which he was sentenced to a total of eight years' imprisonment.

 

JUDGE LJ, giving the judgment of the court, said that the prosecution alleged that when the defendant had consensual sexual intercourse with the two complainants, knowing that he himself was suffering from HIV, he was reckless whether they might become infected, which they both did. Thus, he inflicted grievous bodily harm on them both. It was not in dispute that at least on the majority of occasions sexual intercourse was unprotected. Recklessness, as such, was not in issue. Although both women were willing to have sexual intercourse with the defendant, the prosecution's case was that their agreement would never have been given if they had known of the defendant's condition. The defendant would have contended that he told both women of his condition, and that they were nonetheless willing to have sexual intercourse with him. However, at the end of the prosecution case, the judge ruled (i) that it was open to the jury to convict, notwithstanding R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23; and (ii) that whether or not the complainants knew of the defendant's condition, their consent, if any, was irrelevant and provided no defence since R v Brown (Anthony) [1994] 1 AC 212 deprived the complainants of the legal capacity to consent to such serious harm. In their Lordships' judgment, in relation to s 20, the outdated restrictions against the successful prosecution of those who, knowing that they were suffering HIV or some other serious sexual disease, recklessly transmitted it through consensual sexual intercourse, and inflicted grievous bodily harm on a person from whom the risk was concealed and who was not consenting to it, should be removed. In that context, R v Clarence had no continuing relevance. Moreover, to the extent that R v Clarence suggested that consensual sexual intercourse of itself was to be regarded as consent to the risk of consequent disease, again, it was no longer authoritative. If, however, the victim consented to the risk, that continued to provide a defence under s 20. Although the two were inevitably linked, the ultimate question was not knowledge, but consent. Unless you were prepared to take whatever risk of sexually transmitted infection there might be, it was unlikely that you would consent to a risk of major consequent illness if you were ignorant of it. That said, in every case where these issues arose, the question whether the defendant was or was not reckless, and whether the victim did or did not consent to the risk of a sexually transmitted disease was one of fact, and case specific. Accordingly, the trial judge should not have withdrawn the issue of consent from the jury, the appeal would be allowed and a retrial ordered.

Appearances: Jeremy Carter-Manning QC and Nicholas Mather (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Mark Gadsden and Heather Stangoe (Crown Prosecution Service, Inner London) for the Crown.

--

 

Here is the conclusion of their lorships:

 

"· We repeat that the Crown did not allege, and we therefore are not considering the deliberate infection, or spreading of HIV with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In such circumstances, the application of what we may describe as the principle in Brown means that the agreement of the participants would provide no defence to a charge under s 18 of the 1861 Act.

· The effect of this judgment in relation to s.20 is to remove some of the outdated restrictions against the successful prosecution of those who, knowing that they are suffering HIV or some other serious sexual disease, recklessly transmit it through consensual sexual intercourse, and inflict grievous bodily harm on a person from whom the risk is concealed and who is not consenting to it. In this context, Clarence has no continuing relevance. Moreover, to the extent that Clarence suggested that consensual sexual intercourse of itself was to be regarded as consent to the risk of consequent disease, again, it is no longer authoritative. If however, the victim consents to the risk, this continues to provide a defence under s.20. Although the two are inevitably linked, the ultimate question is not knowledge, but consent. We shall confine ourselves to reflecting that unless you are prepared to take whatever risk of sexually transmitted infection there may be, it is unlikely that you would consent to a risk of major consequent illness if you were ignorant of it. That said, in every case where these issues arise, the question whether the defendant was or was not reckless, and whether the victim did or did not consent to the risk of a sexually transmitted disease is one of fact, and case specific.

· In view of our conclusion that the trial judge should not have withdrawn the issue of consent from the jury, the appeal is allowed. Notwithstanding the arguments to the contrary, we unhesitatingly order a retrial, which should take place at the earliest possible date. Subject to witness convenience and availability, appropriate arrangements are in hand for a trial in early June before a High Court Judge at Inner London Crown Court. In these circumstances we shall not address the issue of sentence.""