Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
I may not be a criminal lawyer, but that is not usually true. Drunkenness does not vitiate consent unless it rises to incapacity.
Courts don't seem to have a defined limit, as its a question of fact, but there was a recent AB Court of Appeal ruling (R. v. Haraldson, 2012 ABCA 147) that summed it up pretty well.
It said you have to have more than "baseline physical function" to have capacity to consent, but notes "mere drunkenness is not the equivalent of incapacity... nor is alcohol-induced imprudent decision making, memory loss, loss of inhibition or self control."
In Haraldson, the Crown appealed a ruling that the complainant lacked capacity due to drunkenness and lost.
So, while anyone can essentially accuse anything... this one isn't such the slam dunk that it appears to be.
|
Well rube is still correct, technically any amount of inebriation can prevent you from having the capacity to consent. The question isn't one of intoxication level, it's about the ability to reach the requisite mental capacity. Thanks for the details though, definitely adds some needed depth to the explanation.