The man accused of the Omagh bomb murders will attempt to have the case against him halted, it emerged today.
Electrician Sean Gerard Hoey (35) from South Armagh, is due to face a total of 61 new charges when he appears in person at court in Northern Ireland in seven days.
A prosecution lawyer confirmed at Craigavon Magistrates' Court today that the charges will be put to Mr Hoey when he appears in the dock next week.
She did not refer to the Omagh killings, but at an earlier court hearing the Crown confirmed that the murder charges were to be put to Mr Hoey before the end of the month.
The accused appeared today at the County Armagh courthouse via video link from jail where he is on remand after being charged with involvement in bombings leading up to the strike on Omagh.
These include attacks in Co Armagh, Co Fermanagh, Banbridge and Newry, Co Down, as well as two in Belfast.
But as prosecutors revealed the extra charges against him, which include the 29 deaths in the 1998 "Real IRA" bomb attack, his legal representative hit out at how the case had been handled.
Defence solicitor Peter Corrigan told Craigavon Magistrates' Court: "He was first interviewed in 1998 about Omagh and other offences.
"We submit that the prosecution has been conducted in a most unacceptable manner. The prosecution have manipulated the process."
Mr Hoey, who is already facing a series of paramilitary and explosive-related charges - including membership of an illegal organisation - is due to be formally charged with the murders following a major review of all available forensic evidence.
The Director of Public Prosecutions directed that he could be accused after studying a mammoth police file. But Mr Corrigan claimed the court had been misled in the case against Mr Hoey, of Molly Road, Jonesborough, and pledged to launch an abuse of process application in an attempt to have the proceedings stopped.
He said: "Throughout earlier discussions about the case, there was no mention of impending murder charges.
"The delay was a breach of his human rights... and it's prejudicing our client in relation to receiving a fair trial."