It's a difficult one isn't it, but at the back of my mind (And I am not talking about this case), if there were a rape allegation, but the girl had a history of being 'free and easy' with her body, that MAY have some relevance mightn't it?
No, a girl can be a massive slag and still be raped. More relevant would be if she, for example, has a record of false allegations or of doing kiss and tell or something, otherwise I don't see how her sexual history is relevant.
That said, this case has never sat right with me. Her story is dodgy and I don't buy the "you can't consent when drunk" line simply because there's so many degrees of intoxication. "Drunk" is a fuzzy concept and shouldn't be used to make these kind of decisions. Personally, despite drinking inordinate amounts at times, I've never blacked out, lost time or not had control, that's just how I am. Some people need two pints and they're a different person. Expecting a third party to be able to accurately judge how in control someone is is unfair IMO. A person who physically can't consent due to being paralytic is one thing, a person who is capable of taking part in a conversation reliably can IMO.
Most of all the law and society in general (as that is who the law is supposed to serve) needs to work out the answers to these questions because the worst thing at the moment is different people have very different views of consent and sexual assault. Ranging from ideas that would literally halve the birthrate if implemented to Trumpesque pussying grabbing is just a bit of banter. Sadly, the two extremes seem to be the ones interested in having the debate.
