What I don't understand is how they could find Ched guilty and Donaldson innocent?
It's easy understand.
You need to consider whether the men thought they had consent to have sex with the drunk girl.
Donaldson's account would be....yes I met a drunk girl in the bar. We chatted and got on well.
We then went to the kebab place. In their I told her I had a room in a hotel and asked if she'd wanted to come back with me.
She said "yes" and she willingly got in the taxi with me.
Yes she was drunk but nothing more than normal, she could speak and converse.
When we arrived at the hotel she went outside the to look for the pizza, she could find it but still returned to the hotel foyer at the own free will with no cohersion. Basically I thought I'd pulled.
Where as Chad's account was...
I was walking the street when I receive a text from my Donaldson saying "I've pulled a bird and she says she's up for a threesome"
So I caught a taxi to the hotel and when I entered the room, she was very drunk but never struggled or anything.
I felt uncomfortable after we had sex....so. decided to leave via the fire exit.
The 2 men had very different build ups to the sex encounter.
You can understand why Donaldson might think he's got consent, it's what happens 1,000's of times every weekend.
However Ched's idea of consent is different, he arrived in a room with a total stranger.
Seen that she very drunk but because she didn't scream and struggle....he thought he had consent.
What Ched did is a bit like seeing a drunk girl in the street almost asleep and her first words to you are wanting sex.
So you oblige because in your mind she agreed to it but you've not given any thought to her motives or state of mind.