The Court of Appeal has dismissed Robert Keogh’s appeal against his convictions for two counts of rape, two counts of rape under section 4, and assault causing harm. The court rejected all three grounds argued on appeal. This judgment dealt with conviction only, not his separate appeal against sentence.
Keogh was convicted on 10 February 2016 after a 13-day trial and sentenced on 18 April 2016 to 13 years’ imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that on 19 July 2012 he invited the complainant to his home at the Hermitage in Portlaoise to do painting work for money, then raped her. The defence denied sexual activity and said the complainant had made advances that Keogh rejected using some force.
The first appeal ground concerned the trial judge’s refusal to recall the complainant after the defence case had effectively closed. The defence wanted to question her about a description of the upstairs bedrooms in a statement to gardaí, which counsel said might not have been covered in cross-examination. The Court of Appeal said the statement had been available from an early stage and counsel was unsure whether the point had already been raised. It found the issue marginal and held that the trial judge was entitled to refuse the recall.
The second ground challenged the absence of a corroboration warning to the jury. The trial judge had considered that evidence of alleged lies by Keogh and injuries to the complainant could amount to corroboration, alongside inconsistencies in the complainant’s account. The appeal court found the judge had properly exercised her discretion and saw no basis to interfere.
The final ground concerned explicit sexual images that had been saved on a media card in the complainant’s phone. Her counsel told the court the images had been emailed to her by a friend and deleted. The trial judge refused leave to question the complainant about them, finding them irrelevant. The Court of Appeal agreed, saying the proposed questioning did not meet the statutory threshold and that a person reporting a crime did not lose her right to privacy.
The court dismissed the appeal against conviction. The judgment makes no determination on the appeal against sentence.