A man jailed for 14 years on a charge arising from the Omagh bombing in which 29 people died has brought an appeal against his conviction.
Colm Murphy remains the only person convicted in connection with the bombing in August 1998.
There was strict security yesterday when the appeal began before the three-judge Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA). The hearing continues today.
Murphy (51), of Jordans Corner, Ravensdale, Dundalk, Co Louth, ran a building company and a pub prior to his conviction by the Special Criminal Court in January 2002 on a charge of conspiracy to cause an explosion.
Murphy has brought his appeal on several grounds, including a claim that the Special Criminal Court fundamentally breached his entitlement to a presumption of innocence by having regard to evidence of previous convictions, contrary to law.
It is claimed the court also wrongly admitted evidence of interview notes and alleged utterances of Murphy.
It is also claimed the trial was rendered unsatisfactory by reason of an almost two-month break in proceedings, and that telephone records were wrongly admitted as evidence.
Among other grounds of appeal is a submission that the Special Criminal Court misdirected itself as to corroboration, and made findings as to corroboration which were not supported by the evidence.
Opening the appeal, Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Murphy, told Mr Justice Kearns, presiding over the CCA and sitting with Mr Justice McMenamin and Mr Justice Clarke, that there were 45 grounds of appeal.
The grounds included a number related to the admissibility of evidence taken during periods of Murphy's detention. A "huge element" of the appeal would be based on his side's claim that two Garda officers had falsified interview notes and had committed "massive perjury".
Other grounds arose from the evidence of a prosecution witness, Mr Terence Morgan, and the trial court's finding that he had perjured himself.
The trial, said Mr O'Higgins, "was laced with proven perjury", and the trial court did not seem to be aware of the dangers of relying on perjured evidence. The trial should have approached this evidence with "great, great caution".
He said there had been an unsatisfactory delay in the case during defence counsel's closing submissions.
There had been an adjournment from November 19th to January 14th and, although this was not a jury trial, judges were no different from jurors, and their findings were affected by the lengthy adjournment.