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 to establish 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. Evidence of the nature and type of area is admissible.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 87
Parties
Accused: Martina Keogh; Prosecution: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Case Stated From District Court to High Court for Determination of Evidentiary Questions
Outcome
First part of the first question answered in the negative; prosecution not entitled to adduce evidence of previous character and activities. Second part (area evidence) answered in the affirmative. Second question (sufficiency of admissible evidence) left to trial judge.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Character Evidence, Reasonable Suspicion, Prostitution Offences
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Character Evidence Reasonable Suspicion Prostitution Offences

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

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Case Stated From District Court to High Court for Determination of Evidentiary Questions

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

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 to establish 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. Evidence of the nature and type of area is admissible.

Court Disposition

First part of the first question answered in the negative; prosecution not entitled to adduce evidence of previous character and activities. Second part (area evidence) answered in the affirmative. Second question (sufficiency of admissible evidence) left to trial judge.

Orders

  • First part of first question answered 'No': prosecution may not adduce evidence of previous character and activities.
  • Second part of first question answered 'Yes': prosecution may adduce evidence of nature and type of area.