The Court of Criminal Appeal struck out two motions filed by Philippe Cauneze after finding they sought relief beyond the limited issues the court had permitted him to pursue.
In a judgment delivered on 19 April 2013, the court granted applications by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). It said the motions, both dated 14 March 2012, did not comply with directions given on 28 February 2012. Those directions allowed Mr Cauneze to seek review only of Finnegan J.’s 6 December 2011 judgment dismissing a fresh application under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 as frivolous and vexatious.
The permitted grounds concerned alleged confusion over a statement attributed to Dr Farrell and a purported forgery; an allegation about whether Dr Maloney found bruising; and an allegation that bruising central to the prosecution case had been fabricated. The court stressed those were the only issues it had allowed Mr Cauneze to raise.
One of the March motions sought original documents and affidavits relating to the original trial, records connected with what the motion called “The Bergeron Affair”, and the attendance of 11 people for examination. It also sought orders concerning the sale of a family home, money paid to a solicitor, and appointment of legal representatives. The second was a 30-page document seeking nine orders to review the December 2011 judgment. The court said the same objection applied to both: they included matters outside its jurisdiction and breached the February directions.
The judgment noted that Mr Cauneze had been convicted on 10 March 2000 of one count of aggravated sexual assault and had brought numerous applications concerning that conviction. It recorded the DPP solicitor’s affidavit evidence that the matter had been before the courts on about 32 occasions. The court also referred to a previous dismissal, on 17 October 2011, of an application alleging a miscarriage of justice.
The court did not decide whether any later application would succeed or rule on whether the time to appeal Finnegan J.’s decision had expired. It observed that any further application would have to be confined to the four permitted issues and would face questions about delay and matters raised in earlier rulings. It ordered both motions struck out.