If D1 administers a substance into V's drink, and V drank it. V then gets in a taxi home, the substance causes V to advance for sex with the taxi driver, D2. She would not have done so if not for the substance. Unknown to D2 that the advances was due to the effects of the administered substance, D2 had sex with the V.
Assuming that V was scantily dressed and was out from a club. Will D2 attract any liability in relation to sexual offences?
From my understanding, this is an issue on consent and whether D2 has the reasonable belief to the consent.
I'm arguing on the facts that because V was seen scantily dressed and was out from a club, there is no reason why the jury should find D2's belief unreasonable. As for the presumption about consent, S76 should not apply since the present case does not fall into any of the circumstances provided, I'm also submitting that S75 should not apply either since S75(1)(c) requires D2 to appreciate the existence of the circumstances.
Anyone has any additional point to add or rebut? Please share, citing cases! =)