How informed a person should be.
D engaged in consensual unprotected sexual intercourse. As a result they contracted HIV, a condition D was aware but which he had not informed the complainants. CA held: the victims consented to sexual intercourse but because of the lack of information made known to them, they had not consented to the risk of contracting HIV.
Anyone who conceals HIV (not just a matter of lying but also a matter of non-disclosure) the person is not informed so cannot consent.
set standard where only D know something and he does not tell V then V cannot properly consent. This will also occur where D is not fully aware of the risk he poses.
It was accepted in Konzani that where D lacked knowledge of his HIV status at the time of intercourse, his failure to disclose information he did not possess could not undermine V's consent.
1) D is aware of risk associated with certain action 0 D must inform V for V's consent to be effective
2) D is unaware of risk - V's consent will be effective despite lack of knowledge.