I've been chosen to present my case as the lead appellant of this case. (Include copies of authorities that you refer to in your presentation)

In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) R v Franklin Jerome Franklin was diagnosed with syphilis in July 2023. He did not get treatment, despite being told to attend his local sexual health clinic immediately. In August 2023, Franklin met Adam Bond at a party. That evening they had unprotected sexual intercourse. Franklin did not tell Bond about the syphilis. However, Franklin had previously had a relationship with Bond in 2018 when he had disclosed that he had gonorrhoea. Bond had also been told by a mutual friend that he had heard that Franklin had caught syphilis from another sexual partner. The day after the party Franklin attended the sexual health clinic to start treatment for syphilis. In September 2023, Bond was diagnosed with syphilis and was prescribed a very strong dose of antibiotics. He eventually made a full recovery. Franklin was charged with unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on Bond, contrary to s. 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. It was not disputed that syphilis amounts to GBH and that Franklin was the source of Bond's infection. The trial judge, Saint J, directed the jury that the consent given by Bond was invalid for this offence, because of the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Konzani [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 14 that it was not possible for Bond to give informed consent to the risk of infection when Franklin had been silent about his condition. Saint J ruled further, that it is not in the public interest to allow people to consent to serious biological infection, apart from the narrow exception as stated in the decision in Dica [2004] QB 1257 which did not apply in this case. Bond was therefore unable to give valid consent in law. Saint J directed the jury accordingly. Franklin was convicted and now appeals against conviction to the Court of Appeal. The grounds of appeal being- 1. That Saint J misdirected the jury by refusing to leave to them the issue of informed consent to the risk of infection. 2. That Saint ] misdirected the jury by stating that it was not possible to consent to serious biological infection