D.P.P. v. Keogh [1997] IEHC 87; [1998] 4 IR 416; [1998] 1 ILRM 72 (3rd June, 1997)

D.P.P. v. Keogh [1997] IEHC 87; [1998] 4 IR 416; [1998] 1 ILRM 72 (3rd June, 1997)

The prosecution is not entitled to adduce evidence of the previous character and activities of an accused person which took place prior to the date of the alleged incident for the purpose of establishing reasonable suspicion under Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993. Such evidence is inadmissible unless the accused puts her character in issue.

Citation
[1998] 1 ILRM 72
Parties
Accused: Martina Keogh; Prosecutor: Sergeant George Kyne
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Case Stated From District Court to High Court
Outcome
First part of the first question answered in the negative; prosecution not entitled to adduce evidence of previous character and activities. Second question left to the trial court, with guidance that sufficient admissible evidence may exist.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Character Evidence, Prostitution Offences, Reasonable Suspicion
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Character Evidence Prostitution Offences Reasonable Suspicion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martina Keogh

Accused

Sergeant George Kyne

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Case Stated From District Court to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution may adduce evidence of previous character and activities of accused to establish reasonable suspicion under Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993
  2. 2 Whether evidence of the nature and type of area is admissible for establishing reasonable suspicion
  3. 3 Whether, excluding inadmissible evidence, there was sufficient admissible evidence to warrant a finding of reasonable suspicion

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution is not entitled to adduce evidence of the previous character and activities of an accused person which took place prior to the date of the alleged incident for the purpose of establishing reasonable suspicion under Section 8 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993. Such evidence is inadmissible unless the accused puts her character in issue.

Court Disposition

First part of the first question answered in the negative; prosecution not entitled to adduce evidence of previous character and activities. Second question left to the trial court, with guidance that sufficient admissible evidence may exist.

Orders

  • Prosecution may not adduce evidence of previous character and activities of accused prior to the alleged incident for establishing reasonable suspicion under Section 8.
  • Evidence of the nature and type of area is admissible.