We probably would have told him what we said today. We would have highlighted the importance of making sure not only that the Crown can prove the standard, but also that the factors are clear and relevant.
It's reasonable to say that someone is being irresponsible when they become intoxicated knowing there is a risk that the intoxication could lead them to cause harm to another person. Similarly, someone is being irresponsible when they become intoxicated knowing that they are at risk of losing all control over their behaviour. Why, then, include both aspects? Professor Grant pointed this out: Are both necessary? Is it a standard? Are they factors?
We will have to push hard to get the law clarified. Since the beginning, we've criticized the necessity of proving that the risk of harm was foreseeable.