This is going to create something of a firestorm I think:

"The essential question for decision is, as it always
is, whether the evidence proved that the appellant had sexual
intercourse with the complainant without her consent," he said.

Sir Igor said, that "if, through drink or for any other reason, the
complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have
intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and
subject to questions about the defendant’s state of mind, if
intercourse takes place, this would be rape.

"However,
where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial
quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing
whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this
would not be rape." The judges concluded that there was a clear
definition of consent.

I’ve missed a bit about how the attempt to change the statutory definition of consent is going: did that pass or fail?

From the small amount of evidence in this report it seems that the woman claims to have been too drunk to consent. Indeed, to not remember the time between being helped to wash her hair after being sick and actually having sex. But then, it’s also true that people can (indeed, it’s quite common) be drunk enough to be walking and talking, giving every appearance of being, well, drunk and conscious, but not remember any of what happens in that period.

So I’m not certain that there is actually "an answer" to it all. Unless we say that any woman too drunk too drive cannot give consent (or some other such strict formulation) then what can the law do about it?