THE man convicted of the murder of Edinburgh book-keeper Suzanne Pilley has been granted a review that could take his case back to the High Court.
Scotland's miscarriage of justice watchdog has accepted an application for a review of the conviction of David Gilroy, 51, who is serving a minimum of 18 years for the murder of 38-year-old Ms Pilley, who was his colleague and former lover.
The move by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is described as "almost a second appeal".
Its decision to hold the review is significant also as only a fraction of convicts' grounds for appeal, which in this case are not yet known, are considered strong enough to examine fully.
Of those, just five per cent are referred to the High Court when the SCCRC believes there has been a miscarriage of justice.
It could take up to eight months for the SCCRC legal experts to make their findings.
It will mean further uncertainty for Ms Pilley's parents, Rob, 70, and Sylvia, 71, whose daughter's body has not been found.
Mr and Mrs Pilley said they are aware of the review but declined to comment at their home in Edinburgh yesterday.
The watchdog plays a key role in the Scottish justice system and is currently considering the review of the case of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, which is its biggest case to date.
Other reviews include convicted killer Malcolm Webster's case and former MSP Tommy Sheridan's perjury conviction.
Reviews are usually applied for when the initial appeal process has failed.
A source connected to the case said the move is an important step as "an appeal will only be accepted for review if there are new grounds" for examination.
Reviews can involve challenges to both conviction and sentence but this review centres on Gilroy's conviction.
Gilroy, formerly of Silverknowes, Edinburgh, was jailed for life at the city's High Court in April 2012 for murdering Ms Pilley in May 2010, and has had one appeal rejected.
The office worker went missing following the May Day holiday that year.
Prosecutors believe Gilroy dumped Ms Pilley's body close to the Rest and Be Thankful road near Arrochar in Argyll.
The Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh rejected an appeal by Gilroy in 2012.
It was argued then that when police interviewed Gilroy in the days following Ms Pilley's disappearance, they contravened his right to have a fair trial.
His legal representative said police interviewed Gilroy as a witness to a potential crime, but that evidence showed they suspected him of committing a crime.
It was said detectives did this to deprive him of the right to consult a solicitor before speaking to them.
Gilroy's wife Andrea sat in the public benches at the appeal.
Gilroy's legal team said when that appeal was rejected they planned to make a further appeal to the UK Supreme Court in London.
Last June the Gilroy family issued a statement ahead of a BBC Crimewatch programme about Ms Pilley saying that legal appeals were ongoing and that an application for a review was being made to the SCCRC.
Mr and Mrs Pilley said at the time they hoped the programme would lead to the discovery of their daughter's body and help towards closure.
A spokesman for the SCCRC confirmed the application had been accepted for full review.
In a statement, Gilroy's family said: "The family remain supportive of David in his work to bring to the attention of the justice system the significant flaws in the case brought against him. He has now spent nearly three years in prison wrongly convicted of a crime which he did not commit. The family is concerned at the time which it is taking to get recognition of what they believe to be a serious miscarriage of justice involving faults by all parts of the justice system.
"David Gilroy's family and friends hope that 2015 will see significant steps taken towards quashing his conviction and ending this protracted period of appalling injustice in all their lives. The family will have nothing further to say at this time and ask that the media continue to respect their privacy."
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