In this case, no jury could possibly distinguish between two scenarios (i) the women went to the house, said no to sex with the men and was then raped, or (ii) the women went to the house, had consensual sex with the men, didn't like it and cried rape. There was no point, therefore, in continuing with the trial.
Yet there does seem something unfair here. Several people met up in order to have sex, and it went wrong. All of the men involved have their names printed in the Bolton newspaper; which can be accessed on the internet for the rest of their lives; the woman though, has a right to anonymity.
Fairness to me suggests that they either all have their names printed or none of them.
As a general rule unless there are marks of violence on the body or a witness, convicting a man of rape is an inexact science.
If a 'respectable' woman beckons a passer-by to climb in through her window and invites him to have sex with her, she can accuse him of rape afterwards and he will be found guilty.
If an inebriated party-goer staggers home with a respectable young man and he rapes her, he will be acquitted of rape.
In effect the court is often not asking the question: did a rape occur, but 'would this woman consent to sex in these circumstances'. Sometimes that method works; often it doesn't.