oxford law - the faculty and its members : shlomit wallerstein

Shlomit Wallerstein D.Phil (Oxon, 2005) M.Stud (Oxon, 2001) LLB (magna cum laude) (Hebrew University, 1999), Solicitor (Israeli Bar)

Subject groups : Criminal Law : European Community Law : Philosophy of Law

S Wallerstein, ''A drunken consent is still consent'--Or Is It? A Critical Analysis of the Law on a Drunken Consent to Sex FOllowing Bree ' (2009) 73 Journal of Criminal Law 582

Abstract: Does a person who is voluntarily drunk remain capable of giving valid consent to sex? The Court of Appeal in Bree held that ‘a drunken consent is still (valid) consent’, though it further recognises that the capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. This decision is a move in the right direction, yet this article argues that it has not gone far enough, and that s. 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which governs these scenarios allows—and even requires—a more drastic interpretation: a drunken consent is not consent when the person is very drunk. Based on a distinction between factual and legal consent, the article starts by setting up the legal framework as set out in s. 74, and developed in Bree and H. It then goes on to criticise the current case law and its interpretation of s. 74 for not being restrictive enough, by examining two possible theoretical rationales, mentioned in the judgments. The first, which is based on an analogy with the law relating to intoxicated offenders, is criticised on the grounds of differences between consent and intent. The second, which is based on the general argument that this position recognises the positive aspect of sexual autonomy, is criticised for its failure to distinguish between claims of normative facts and claims of public policy and for giving too much weight to the latter considerations. From the discussion an alternative, more restrictive position, emerges in line with s. 74 of the 2003 Act, according to which a drunken consent is not consent. This position can be adopted by judges, through the provision of better guidance to juries, but failing that a reform of the law might be needed.

S Wallerstein, 'Criminalising Remote Harm and the case of Anti-democratic Activity' (2007) 28(6) Cardozo Law Review (volume of symposium in Honour of George Fletcher) 2697-2737

S Wallerstein, 'Justifying Self-Defence: A Theory of Forced Consequences' (2005) 91 Virginia Law Review 999-1035

S Wallerstein and others, 'Thou Shall Not Resspect the person of the poor, not honour the person of the Mighty: On the Dinitz Case' (2003) 33 Mishpatim 13

Abstract: (in Hebrew)

S Wallerstein, 'The State’s Duty of Self-Defence: Justifying the Expansion of Criminal Law' in L. Lazaros & B. Goold (eds), Security and Human Rights (Hart Publishing (Forth)