“The issue is whether the release decision was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. ”
“During the course of my evidence the Chairman expressed scepticism that Mr Bates would be honest with his supervisors and expressed the view that it would be quite possible that despite being told how important it was to let them know if he was starting to form a relationship, Mr Bates would quite likely conceal this fact from his supervisors. When I observed that there was no evidence as far as one could tell regarding dishonesty on the part of Mr Bates, whose most striking characteristic was ‘bloody mindedness’ rather than deviousness, the Chairman interrupted my evidence and in effect dismissed me, stating that as far as he was concerned Mr Bates remained a danger to any woman that he was likely to form a relationship with subsequently and he seemed to imply that Dr Halsey and I were being naive in thinking that he could be effectively supervised in the community.” “In other words, there was a strong impression that the leading member of the panel had formed his own unshakable opinion in regard to this case prior to the hearing of the evidence.”
“I found the hearing to be a complete farce, and the attitude from the judge from the very beginning was very hostile. He introduced everyone around the room and when he came to me, his first words to me were, ‘Good morning, Mr Bates, you are truculent.’ He then asked whether I knew what the word meant. I did know what it meant but was given no time to reply or question why he had made such a statement to me, especially when he had never met me before.” “In his closing, I felt that the judge of the panel continued to show bias and seemed nonchalant about the importance of the hearing to me. I felt he had already formed his opinion and disregarded anything said that disagreed with his preformed opinion.”
“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. We should perhaps underline that, as a matter of practical reality, capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, is fact specific, or more accurately, depends on the actual state of mind of the individuals involved on the particular occasion.”