According to a recent Home Office factsheet, the police received 6,732 reports of spiking in the year ending April 2023, with 74% of victims being women. Additionally, a YouGov poll conducted in December 2022 indicated that 10% of women and 5% of men reported having been spiked. These statistics highlight a significant public safety issue, particularly in nightlife venues, where 80% of incidents occur.

Despite the growing prevalence of such crimes, the current legal framework, primarily based on the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, fails to protect victims adequately and hold perpetrators accountable. Marks emphasises that existing laws are antiquated and do not reflect the serious nature of harm caused by spiking, which fundamentally violates personal autonomy.

"The harm of spiking lies in the violation of an individual's right to control what substances enter their body," Marks states. "Our legal system must evolve to reflect this reality and prioritise the principle of consent."

In contrast to recent findings of the Home Office, Marks's research reveals significant gaps in the criminal law, suggesting it is not the police who should shoulder the blame for low prosecution rates.

Key Findings from the article published in The Criminal Law Review :

1. Inadequate Legal Framework: Marks critiques the existing legislation, highlighting its inability to effectively categorise and prosecute spiking incidents. Many current offences, including those related to administering noxious substances, are unclear about the circumstances in which a given substance (such as alcohol) will be noxious, and require additional physical harm or injury to be intended by the offender, leaving many spiking cases unaddressed. "Even if only done for a laugh, drugging someone without their consent is wrong. Even if the spiker thinks that the person will end up enjoying the effects, or will benefit from them, it is not their choice to make." Amber thinks that the offence should hinge on consent.
2. Historical Oversight: The article references a long-overlooked recommendation from the Criminal Law Revision Committee (CLRC) in 1980, which proposed a specific offence for administering drugs without consent. Reviving this proposal is essential for modernising the law.
3. Public Support for Change: With increasing awareness and advocacy surrounding personal safety, there is a growing demand from the public and lawmakers alike for a dedicated offence of spiking. This would facilitate better data collection on incidents and send a clear message that spiking is crime.
4. The Role of Autonomy: Marks emphasises that the core of the problem lies in the violation of autonomy. "Not knowing what substances a third party has put in one's body is a profound infringement of personal rights," she explains. "It is essential that the law reflects this and labels it a violation, regardless of whether it was the offender's intention to annoy or harm the person spiked and even where the offender thinks it will do the person spiked good."

Amber Marks urges legislators to prioritise the creation of a new statutory offence that accurately reflects the wrongs associated with spiking. "The absence of a clear legal offence for spiking fosters confusion and a culture of victim blaming. " she warns. "It is time for our legal system to catch up with societal values regarding consent and personal autonomy."

As discussions around personal safety and consent continue to evolve, it is imperative that lawmakers take meaningful action to protect individuals from the dangers of spiking. Marks' article serves as a critical reminder that the legal system must adapt to address these modern challenges.