Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
đș Intoxication & Consent - Coggle Diagram
đș Intoxication & Consent
Capacity vs. choice (s.74):
Unconscious / doesnât understand whatâs happening đ¶âđ«ïž
=> no capacity
â no consent.
So intoxicated they canât communicate a choice đ€
â no free choice
â no consent.
Merely disinhibited (does things they wouldnât do sober) CAN still be consent.
đ Bree [2007]: conviction quashedâjury not properly directed on these distinctions.
âDrunken consent is still consentâ:
Controversially noted in
Dougal (2005)
: being drunk doesnât automatically negate consent.
=> The question is capacity and free choice, not sobriety level alone!
Presumptions check:
s.75 only kicks in if D administered a stupefying substance
without Vâs consent.
Self-intoxication â no s.75 shortcut; youâre in s.74 territory (prove lack of capacity/freedom or lack of actual consent).
Kamki
direction (approved by CA, 2013)
There are stages of consciousness from sober đ â âdim awarenessâ đ¶â unconscious đ”
Step 1: Was V
capable
of making a choice at the time? If not, no consent.
Step 2: If capable, did V actually
consent?
Decide on the evidence.
đ§ Quick
s.76? (rare here) â usually no.
s.75? Only if D drugged V â rebuttable presumption.
Otherwise s.74:
Capacity?
Freedom to choose/communicate?
If both present, did V actually agree by choice?