It is a difficult problem. I believe that women who consent to sex while drunk should not be able to file rape claims when they later regret the event. Also, if a woman is too drunk to remember whether or not she consented to sex it should not automatically be rape. However, if a woman is unconscious, or loses consciousness during sex, and if the man continues, it should definitely be categorised as rape. Both sexes are legally able to get blind drunk if they want, but they must be responsible for their drunken actions, even if the behaviour is out of character. I don't see why a man (who may be just as drunk as a woman) should be held solely responsible in the event of drunken consensual, but later regrettable, sex.
Darla Danya, London The judge's ruling leaves women with somewhat of a problem - that a potential rapist now knows that he can rape a women who has been drinking and get away with it. As well as suggesting to women that they should drink less or risk getting raped, maybe it should also be suggested that men shouldn't sleep with unconscious or very intoxicated women because they may cry rape? Katherine Tomlinson, London
What I find particularly unsettling about this case is that the accused had been employed as a security guard at this party and was asked to take the girl home as she was unwell. This would imply to me that the man owed a duty of care to the girl as soon as he agreed to the request to take her home and he should have ensured that she reached her room safely and without harm. In his capacity as a security guard I also presume he was sober. In my opinion, he therefore took advantage of his position and of the girl's drunken state. However, all of this seems to have been overlooked. Does this mean that a policeman would be able to have sex with any drunken woman he picked up and took to safety as long as she was drunk enough not to remember if she gave consent or not? Of course not, there would be an uproar. Kerry Porritt, London
This will at least get away from the situation where, having had drunken but consensual sex, somebody wakes up to find out that, in the cold light of day, they don't fancy their new partner as much as they thought, that they can cry "rape". If a woman is unconscious then there is the potential for a case of reckless rape, otherwise we all do things we regret while drunk. David Leslie, Crieff
Isn't this argument all about equality? So long as the man is to be held responsible for his actions when drunk, the woman should similarly be held responsible for hers. Dominic Graham de Montrose, London
The judge's instruction to the jury was undoubtedly correct. As a law student I understand that the lack of consent is of the essence of the offence of rape. Here, there was no evidence that there was such a lack of consent; the prosecution and judge had no choice. The suggestions of reform that have been made in the wake of this case worry me. If the law were to be changed to the effect that drunken consent was not true consent then the injustice would be against the man who entered into sexual relations with a woman who, at the time, consented and may have in fact been very willing. Such a man would be subject to the subsequent regret of a woman retrospectively negating her consent and rendering him a rapist. That is not an acceptable situation. The law, as it stands, already criminalises the situation in which the woman concerned is unconscious. If it were possible to have established that in this case then it would indeed have been rape. It wasn't possible - and this was therefore not a case of rape. I also wonder whether Vera Baird MP has familiarised herself with the rule of the House of Commons which prohibits MPs from criticising individual judgments given by judges? This rule exists to ensure and maintain the independence of the judiciary - a necessary requirement of our society and the Rule of Law – and someone should tell Vera Baird MP of it, if not hold her to account for what she has already been quoted as saying. Andrew Clark, Dumbarton
So are we to say that just because a woman goes out and has a few too many she is asking to be raped? Because in essence this is what this ruling is. Any man who wants to have sex with a girl now just has to get her drunk, rape her and then claim she consented. It is licence for rapists. I agree it is a horribly complex area, but this is not the answer. Men should, as they used to do, treat women as women and not take advantage of a stranger because she is drunk. If the man is sober then he should keep it in his pants. If he is drunk then arguably neither of them can really consent or not and the case has to turn on the facts, there can be no broad rule of thumb, either way it leaves too many people open to potential abuse. There is one other question, will this ruling apply to men? What happens if a man gets drunk and a woman (or another man) takes advantage? Chris Carr, Gosport
This is a terrible, terrible decision. The case may set a dangerous new precedent in the law. If the phrase uttered by Mr. Justice Roderick Evans whereby "drunken consent is still consent" is taken to apply to all cases, then this will surely mean that a sober man (as it seems in this case he was) will be able to sleep with a very drunk woman, who would not have consented had she been sober, and yet escape prosecution. This is also a bad decision in that the very idea that "drunken consent is still consent" is also surely incompatible with the element of "freedom and capacity" in giving consent, which is clearly required by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. If a woman is so drunk that she cannot even remember having sex, she surely will not have had the capacity to give consent. This case is not about women escaping prosecution for regrettable sex, where both parties are intoxicated. One must consider the much wider implications to the law surrounding sexual offences as a whole. Hannah Al-Othman, Durham
It's about time men took responsibility for their actions. They're men not dogs. If a woman is drunk she's in no position to say no, and he should leave her be. A real man can control himself - no one died from not having sex. If a man lacks self-control to that extent he needs treatment. Sarah, Gillingham
Where a woman gets so incapacitated through drink or drugs that she simply cannot remember whether she consented to sex or not, it can't be just for her and the justice system to assume that the man raped her. That puts too much responsibility on the man to prove that there was consent, when he himself might be too drunk to remember. What kind of proof could you produce anyway, a signed waiver? The only thing to take away from this case is that women just have to be responsible enough not to get paralytic, which a lot of women seem to do these days. Jonathan Jones, London
Consent shouldn't be judged on whether or not a drunken woman managed to say "no" to sex. What should be required is that she positively assented and that, when viewed from the man's position, one would objectively consider that she appeared sufficiently sober at the time to be able to understand the consequences of what she was saying. Nik Fox, London
The whole debate is pretty sordid and once again brings home the fact that alcohol, in excess, is a major stumbling block in the British psyche. I simply cannot imagine such a debate being opened to the public in the quality press in other European countries, particularly Spain, where I live. Turning to the judge´s ruling in this particular case, I must say that I wholeheartedly agree. Drunken people, men and women alike, should be accountable only to themselves for their actions, and to third parties, if their actions should bring grievance to bear. Just as a drunken driver cannot use his drunkenness as a mitigating circumstance, then a drunken woman has no right to use her drunkenness to bring a phoney rape charge to bear on the man with whom she has willingly had sex. And by the way, would a woman who has had sex in such a way bear all the hallmarks of a real rape victim: lesions, torn underwear, etc? Mike Smith, Zaragoza, Spain
Whilst it is undesirable to open the floodgates concerning consent in such circumstances, it may also be considered as equally undesirable to have the hen crying foul. Consent, however, is sacrosanct and must be unequivocal. If one party decides to engage in sexual activity with another who is unconscious or not having the capacity to give consent, then he/she must bear the risk of having committed the offence. Darren Tan, Southampton
