Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
To be fair (and I see where both sides are coming from), he's implying that we have a situation where all parties are drunk and underage. There might have been consent (not informed on anyones part). He's arguing how are the boys more liable if they're drunk too and everyone has "consented" and isnt being forced. Obviously we don't know the answer but Im sure its been set through case law already, Id be interested to see the ruling.
For the record, how do we know she was blackout drunk anyways? (not that it impacts it either way).
|
It is open for him to claim that he honestly but mistakenly believed she was consenting, however, this cannot be induced by alcohol because our criminal code does not allow self-induced states to be defences. So if the court accepts that he honestly believed she was consenting (this need not be reaonable belief but an honest belief) then he would be aquitted, but there has to be other evidence, not his intoxicated state that led him to believe she was consenting.
The fact that she was drunk and possibly showing some kinds of consent would still probably fail because if she is that drunk and he knows it then he is either being reckless or wilfully blind by continuing his actions
(Source, my girlfriend who just wrote her Criminal Law final 2 days ago)