In the context of history, these two cases (St. John's and Halifax) are bizarre.  Here's why: 

Clearly the pivotal issue is NOT 'consent', although women's groups would have us think so.  In these cases, nobody can determine whether the women consented or not. Besides, the real issue is alcohol abuse, i.e.: not just "tipsy" but intoxicated to the point of mental blackout.  In the historical context, it would be drunken MEN who couldn't remember.  Not now: today ("you've come a long way, baby",) it's the WOMEN who are publicly plastered. The men under investigation are...well, as sober as a judge, so to speak.

Exactly 100 years ago, prohibition ruled the land, because men couldn't handle drink--they beat girl-friends and wives, robbed their children of food (because they drank their pay away).  Women led the attack against booze.  

This time, maybe men should lead the attack.  Back to Prohibition, perhaps, to protect both men--from criminal charges--and women--from themselves.