The Court of Criminal Appeal refused William (otherwise Billy) Keogh’s application for leave to appeal his rape conviction, holding that the conviction was safe on the evidence. The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Declan Budd on 16 July 2009, concerned the conviction only; the judgment described a separate Director of Public Prosecutions application to review the sentence for alleged undue leniency as a sequel if the conviction stood.
Keogh had been tried in the Central Criminal Court on charges of raping V.T. and stealing €1,200 from her at the Tower Hotel in Waterford on 26 May 2006. The jury found him not guilty of theft on 8 February 2008 and guilty of rape by a majority of 10 to two the following morning.
The court said the jury could reach different verdicts on the two counts because they were required to consider each separately. It rejected the argument that the acquittal on theft made the rape verdict perverse, noting that jurors could doubt the theft allegation while accepting the central allegation about the sexual encounter.
The judgment set out the parties’ sharply different accounts. V.T. said sex began by agreement on the condition that a condom be used. She testified that Keogh removed it after she refused, continued intercourse without it, used force and threatened to throw her from the hotel window. Keogh’s account, given in police interviews read to the jury, was that they renegotiated an additional payment for sex without a condom. He denied using force, acting without consent or stealing money.
The appeal court pointed to medical evidence of bruising on V.T.’s jaw, face and shoulder, and evidence from a Garda who saw her upset and with marks. It said this evidence supported the jury’s assessment of her account. The court also rejected challenges concerning the judge’s directions, the presentation of Keogh’s interview statements, photographs, a Garda’s description of V.T.’s demeanour and a witness’s reference to text messages. It noted that the defence had elicited the text-message evidence.
The court concluded that the trial had been conducted properly and fairly and refused leave to appeal against conviction. The judgment gives no decision on the separate sentence-review application.