Alas, if the perpetrators didn't know that, then it wasn't rape. Evans had a reasonable belief based on what transpired that she consented - because she did so verbally and his defence were able to prove she said things she had previously said when she was having consensual sex. If she said those things during consensual sex, then it would be reasonable for him to believe she was consenting, even if she was not able to remember the next morning. That information is how the defence overturned the prosecution.... not that his actions or hers weren't ill-advised or that alcohol has no part in it, rather that his belief she consented was reasonable and therefore it wasn't rape.

I do think young people need to understand about alcohol consumption and use cases like this as an example of what can go wrong. I agree, as you've suggested if you're too drunk to remember then you're probably too drunk to consent. HOWEVER, rape has two criteria and even if you're too drunk to consent, there's the chance you might give the impression of consent and create a legal grey area. That's where this case sits and it should be a warning to everyone involved about the perils of alcohol and sex. Thanks for commenting and reading. :o)