I find it interesting that the commentary has focused only on what the judge said about consent.  It is true that a drunk person can consent; it depends on the level of intoxication.  However - why is nobody concerned with asking whether this woman really consented to having sex with the cab driver?  The cab driver doesn't appear to have been her boyfriend or even a previous casual acquaintance.  Why on earth would she consent - even if she were legally able to - to having sex with a cab driver?  This is not to demean cab drivers in any way; just to point out he was a complete stranger, and there is no imaginable way the topic could have arisen.  On that basis, he should have been convicted.