[dlky1]

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! =)

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by dlky1)
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! =)

Maybe I'm misreading your argument but are you suggesting the belief is not unreasonable because V is scantily dressed and had been clubbing? If so, I'd reconsider this. This suggests that if any male had sex with her, it would be a reasonable belief because of her clothing and past location. Would it be lessreasonable had she been in jeans and jumper, comes out of the cinema and then advances on D2 for sex? I'd say what the key point there actually is is the fact she ASKS him for sex. If anything, the fact she's coming from a club is more damning because you can infer she'll be drunk and may not be able to consent/may be drugged.

Other than that, I don't see any real issues with your argument.

[dlky1]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
Maybe I'm misreading your argument but are you suggesting the belief is not unreasonable because V is scantily dressed and had been clubbing? If so, I'd reconsider this. This suggests that if any male had sex with her, it would be a reasonable belief because of her clothing and past location. Would it be lessreasonable had she been in jeans and jumper, comes out of the cinema and then advances on D2 for sex?

Hey there, thanks for the reply!

Yup, I'm moving towards that direction! I get your point, and it makes sense too. Would it be better or much clearer if I elaborate my argument saying that because no reasonable person would have thought that a girl will offer sex to a stranger, and with the facts forming the basis of the circumstances. It would be hard to argue that D2 did not take steps 'to ascertain whether B consents', in this case V, according to S1(2)?

If I may use your point, probably I'll say that it may be a different situation if V was in proper clothes or comes out from cinema. Jury could find him reckless as to whether or not V consented. The key point here is whether at the time of asking, she has the genuine capacity in making decision.

Would it be different? =)