THE man found guilty of murdering Suzanne Pilley has failed in his bid to have his conviction quashed, but will take his case to the Supreme Court.
Lawyers acting for David Gilroy, 50, told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh that he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Gilroy, formerly of Silverknowes, Edinburgh, was jailed for life at the city's high court in April for murdering Suzanne in May 2010. The office worker – whose body has never been recovered – went missing following the May Day holiday that year.
Prosecutors believe Gilroy dumped Suzanne's body close to the Rest and Be Thankful road near Arrochar in Argyll.
Yesterday, the lawyer acting for Gilroy, John Scott QC, told the appeal court that police acted illegally when they interviewed his client in the days following Suzanne's disappearance.
Mr Scott also argued that Lord Bracadale, the judge who presided over Gilroy's trial earlier this year, acted illegally when he did not stop proceedings after some jurors saw a medical report which speculated about the circumstances surrounding the book-keeper's disappearance. However, judges Lord Carloway, Lord Brodie and Lord Wheatley rejected Gilroy's appeal saying that the police acted legally when dealing with him and that Lord Bracadale acted correctly during his trial.
Lord Carloway said: "This court is of the opinion that this appeal cannot succeed."
Now Gilroy's legal team plan to appeal to the UK Supreme Court in London.
Gilroy's wife Andrea sat in the public benches just yards away with her husband's father.
Mr Scott argued that when police interviewed his client in the days following Suzanne's disappearance, they contravened his right to have a fair trial.
The QC said police interviewed Gilroy as a witness to a potential crime, but Mr Scott said evidence showed they suspected him of committing a crime.
The lawyer said detectives did this to deprive him of the right to consult a solicitor before speaking to them.
Mr Scott said this resulted in Gilroy providing officers with evidence that was used against him at his trial. He said this evidence should not have been heard.
Mr Scott also said that officers forensically examined Gilroy's body at the police station.
Mr Scott added: "The full forensic examination given to him suggests that he was something more than a witness."
But the appeal court judges told Gilroy that they had to reject the appeal.
Mr Scott asked for leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. Lord Carloway told Mr Scott to hold off asking for leave until he and his fellow judges wrote a report detailing their reasons for rejecting the appeal.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article