I'm troubled not only by him abusing his powers to commit the offences but by the nature of the defence.
His alcohol consumption and level of intoxication is referenced as if it's relevant and apparently, it's entirely plausible, that within minutes of meeting him a woman has consented to engaging in sex in a public place.
All of this despite the fact that the victims claims of having googled police powers have presumably been verified.
I understand that he needs to offer some sort of defence once it's confirmed that sex took place but our rape conviction rates are so low and yet these are the type of pathetic excuses violent sexual predators go to court with fully anticipating them to be treated credibly. It speaks volumes about male entitlement; they expect other people to believe the unbelievable.