The Court of Appeal has dismissed Philippe Cauneze’s third application to have his aggravated sexual assault conviction set aside, finding that he produced nothing that could be regarded as a new or newly discovered fact.
The application was brought under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993. In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2015, Mr Justice Birmingham said the attempt to re-litigate matters already decided was vexatious and an abuse of process. The court dismissed the application; it did not set aside the conviction.
Mr Cauneze was convicted on 10 March 2000 on one count of aggravated sexual assault. The jury acquitted him on two other counts, rape and rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. The complainant was his then wife. He received 100 hours of community service, but the Court of Criminal Appeal later replaced that sentence with a three-year prison term, suspended in full. He had withdrawn his appeal against conviction.
Earlier efforts to reopen the conviction were unsuccessful. The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected an initial section 2 application in 2011, and dismissed a later appeal on 17 February 2014. The latest application, lodged on 15 September 2015, again alleged that the trial transcript had been falsified and raised claims of interference and conspiracy. It also sought trial materials, including original notes and parts of the transcript.
The Court of Appeal said the transcript allegation rested on a misreading of a sentence in the 2011 judgment. Read in context, the sentence recorded Mr Cauneze’s submission; it was not a finding that the transcript was false. The court also noted that the trial judge had certified the transcript as a true and accurate record on 16 October 2000.
The court said no evidence had been produced to support the allegations of interference or conspiracy. It further held that it had no role in reviewing legal rulings made by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Principles cited from the case of Willoughby v DPP concerned admitting fresh evidence on appeal and did not establish how they applied to this section 2 application.
The judgment’s schedule records that the jury found Mr Cauneze guilty on count three by a majority of 11 to 1. The court’s decision was limited to dismissing the latest application.