Joe O’Reilly faces his second Christmas in jail tonight after making a legal bid to overturn his conviction for the murder of his wife Rachel.
Lawyers for the 36-year-old claimed the case against him was insufficient and criticised the culmination of email, telephone and CCTV evidence that led to his life sentence behind bars.
A jury last year unanimously convicted O’Reilly of the murder of his 30-year-old wife at their home in The Naul, Co Dublin, on October 2004.
The couple had two young sons.
An emotional O’Reilly wiped away a tear and embraced his tearful sister Ann before he was led away by prison officers to spend his second Christmas in the Midlands Prison.
The three-judge Court of Criminal Appeal reserved judgment.
He will find out in the New Year if his bid is successful and his conviction and life sentence overturned.
A barrister for O'Reilly originally lodged 11 grounds of appeal but today told the packed courtroom he was dropping four.
Patrick Gageby SC, for O’Reilly, claimed the trial judge should have directed the jury to return a not guilty verdict because the evidence was tenuous, the trial unsatisfactory and verdict unsafe.
He argued that emails between O’Reilly and his sister Ann - filled with derogatory remarks about his marriage and Rachel - in June 2004 were of no relevance as they did not show his state of mind at the time of his wife’s killing as the prosecution claimed.
But Denis Vaughan Buckley SC, for the State, said the emails showed O’Reilly’s true feelings for his wife and, importantly, a motive — that he was planning a new life with his lover Nikki Pelley and wanted full custody of his two sons.
“These emails establish, among other things, that he absolutely detested his late wife and that he was having an affair with someone else,” said Mr Vaughan Buckley.
“It’s quite relevant.” Mr Gageby also argued expert evidence on CCTV footage, which showed a car matching the description of O’Reilly’s Fiat Marea near the family home on the morning of the murder, should not have been submitted as no attempt was made to compare the image with other types of vehicles.
Mr Vaughan Buckley maintained the expert had concluded the car may or may not have contained the suspect.
“It was a matter for cross examination and a matter for comment within closing submissions to the jury. It was not wrong in evidence,” he added.
O’Reilly’s barrister said no official proof had been offered that phone operator O2 was a licensed company and he raised concerns over whether mobile phone records - which crucially tracked O’Reilly from his workplace to the Naul and back on the day - had been gleaned lawfully by the state under the Telecommunications Act.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John L Murray, said if phone evidence was inappropriately obtained there would be consequences, but Mr Vaughan Buckley maintained gardai had given evidence the firm was licensed.
He said the jury had also seen warrants from Superintendent Martin Callinan - now Assistant Commissioner - in which he had ordered the documents from the firm.
Mr Vaughan Buckley also disputed claims that portions of O’Reilly’s interviews should not have been submitted to the jury showed the suspect had exercised his right to silence and denied it was wrong to submit a statement taken before O’Reilly was arrested.
The appeal was heard by the Chief Justice, sitting with Mr Justice Roderick Murphy and Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, who revserved judgment.
PA