The first stage of convicted murderer Catherine Nevin's attempt to have her conviction declared a miscarriage of justice will come before the Court of Criminal Appeal today.
Ms Nevin has initiated proceedings in which she is arguing that material not given to her lawyers at the time of her trial contained information casting doubt on the credibility and motivation of key prosecution witnesses in the case.
In those circumstances, she claims her conviction constitutes a miscarriage of justice and it should be overturned on grounds of those "newly discovered facts".
A date for the hearing of Ms Nevin's application for a certificate of a miscarriage of justice has yet to be fixed and the proceedings will be mentioned before the appeal court today.
Ms Nevin (55), was convicted after a 42-day trial in April 2000 of the murder of her husband Tom at their pub, Jack White's Inn, Brittas Bay, on March 19th, 1996. She was also convicted on three counts of soliciting three different men to kill her husband in 1989 and 1990, six years before his murder. Ms Nevin is serving a life sentence on the murder charge and a total of seven years on the soliciting charges.
An appeal against her conviction was dismissed in 2003 by the Court of Criminal Appeal but Ms Nevin has now brought proceedings under the Crime Procedure Act 1993 to have her case declared a miscarriage of justice.
For the purpose of that application, she is seeking disclosure of documents which she claims were withheld from her side in the trial on grounds they were not relevant.
She is contending the documents, including Garda security files on Gerry Heapes, John Jones and William McClean, and documents relating to her late husband, are relevant and would assist her in undermining the credibility of the three men and another State witness, Patrick Russell.
She alleges there is material indicating Mr Heapes, Mr Jones and Mr McClean were State or paid informers and that such material should have been produced to her lawyers. She also contends that any documents indicating that Mr Russell was a paid informer should be disclosed to her side.
She is alleging the material includes security files indicating that Mr McClean was a suspect in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings of 1974. She claims Mr McClean had during the trial denied he had any paramilitary connections but that Garda Special Branch files going back to 1974 would have an effect on his credibility in that regard.
She is also alleging a failure to disclose material relating to her husband and to Jack White's Inn. She claims the material includes security files indicating that the pub was on a list of pubs with suspected IRA connections. It is understood Ms Nevin will argue that any such material would indicate an alternative motive for killing Mr Nevin.
