Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Keogh [2017] IECA 232 (11 May 2017)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Keogh [2017] IECA 232 (11 May 2017)

The trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing to recall the complainant, in not giving a corroboration warning where evidence capable of corroboration existed, and in refusing leave to cross-examine about explicit images due to lack of relevance and failure to meet statutory criteria. No error of law or miscarriage of justice was found.

Citation
[2017] IECA 232
Parties
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Appellant: Robert Keogh
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Corroboration Warning, Cross Examination of Complainant, Relevance of Evidence, Judicial Discretion
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Rape Corroboration Warning Cross Examination of Complainant Relevance of Evidence Judicial Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Robert Keogh

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to recall the complainant for cross-examination on an alleged inconsistency regarding knowledge of the house layout
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give a corroboration warning to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing leave to cross-examine the complainant about explicit sexual images on her phone

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing to recall the complainant, in not giving a corroboration warning where evidence capable of corroboration existed, and in refusing leave to cross-examine about explicit images due to lack of relevance and failure to meet statutory criteria. No error of law or miscarriage of justice was found.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed