David Gilroy fails in Supreme court appeal bid
The killer of Suzanne Pilley has failed in his bid to have judges at Britain's highest court review his claims he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
David Gilroy, 50, was told by appeal court judges in Edinburgh on Wednesday he could not have his case reviewed by the UK Supreme Court.
He was jailed at the High Court in Edinburgh for life in April 2012 for murdering Ms Pilley in May 2010.
Gilroy denies killing his ex-lover and says he has been wrongfully convicted.
On Wednesday, Gilroy's legal team argued police broke the law when they were investigating their client in the days following Ms Pilley's disappearance.
Defence solicitor advocate John Scott QC wanted judges Lord Carloway, Lord Brodie and Lord Marnoch to refer the case to the Supreme Court in London to rule on whether the police acted illegally.
However, the judges refused and told Mr Scott they were not convinced a miscarriage of justice had taken place.
Speaking afterwards, Ms Pilley's family welcomed the verdict.
Her mother, Sylvia Pilley, said: "Justice has been done. We will never, ever come to terms with it. We are just in the same place."
The hearing at the Court of Criminal Appeal comes 12 months after Gilroy was convicted at the High Court for murdering Ms Pilley.
The office worker, whose body has never been recovered, went missing in Edinburgh following the May Day holiday that year.
Prosecutors believe Gilroy attacked Ms Pilley and transported her remains in the back of his car across Scotland.
They think her body was dumped in a grave somewhere near the Rest and Be Thankful beauty spot in Argyll.
During the investigation in the days following her disappearance, officers interviewed Gilroy as he was her colleague and former lover.
He was originally interviewed as a witness because officers thought Ms Pilley was alive.
However, it became clear to officers Gilroy had murdered Ms Pilley and he was arrested and charged.
At a hearing at the Appeal Court in December 2012, Mr Scott argued that officers had broken the law when they had interviewed Gilroy as a witness.
Mr Scott argued that evidence showed that detectives always suspected Gilroy of committing a crime - Mr Scott said that they should have told him he was a suspect and cautioned him that he didn't have to answer their questions.
Mr Scott claimed that by speaking to Gilroy as a witness, they were able to extract evidence from him, which the Crown used to secure a conviction against him.