A further attempt by convicted murderer, Joe O'Reilly to appeal his conviction for the murder of his wife, Rachel, has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
O'Reilly wanted the Supreme Court's permission to appeal a ruling by the Court of Appeal that his attempt to have his conviction declared a miscarriage of justice was an abuse of process.
But in a written determination this week, the Supreme Court refused to allow him to take a further appeal.
O'Reilly was found guilty by a jury at the Central Criminal Court in 2007, of the murder of his wife at their home in the Naul, in Co Dublin in October 2004 and was jailed for life.
Rachel O'Reilly's badly beaten body was found in the bedroom of their home by her mother.
O'Reilly lost an appeal against his conviction and last year the Court of Appeal refused his application to have the conviction declared a miscarriage of justice.
His lawyers wanted to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.
O'Reilly had claimed that he did not sufficiently appreciate at the time of his trial, the significance of the book of evidence or a portion of it being found in the jury room.
His lawyers claimed the Court of Appeal paid insufficient regard to this argument.
The DPP argued O'Reilly was told about the book of evidence situation on the fourth day of his trial and acting on advice, instructed his lawyers to go ahead with the trial.
They also argued these matters could not possibly mount to new fact or newly discovered fact.
In their determination, the three Supreme Court judges said the Appeal Court's conclusion was that it was absolutely clear a conscious and deliberate decision was taken by O’Reilly for tactical and strategic reasons to proceed with the trial and that his attempt now to resile from that choice amounted to an abuse of process.
The uncontroverted evidence was no member of the jury had read the book of evidence or any part of it, the court noted.
The Supreme Court determined, the Court of Appeal's refusal of this application did not involve any matter of general public importance and nor had O’Reilly established it was in the interests of justice an appeal be heard by the Supreme Court.
