Colm Murphy's lawyers are appealing on 38 grounds, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent.
The claim that the prosecution case was tainted by the fabrication of evidence by one of the Garda investigating teams was a central plank of the defence case.
It was rejected by the court, although it ruled out the evidence of the gardaí in question. This is now the subject of an internal Garda inquiry.
During the case, defence lawyers had claimed that the activities of one team was unlikely to be unknown to the others. They also sought to introduce into the case other instances where members of the investigating team had had their evidence questioned by the court. This was ruled inadmissible and they are challenging this ruling in the appeal.
The whole issue of the credibility of Garda evidence, that Murphy had confessed during interrogation, will be central to the appeal.
The first ground, outlined yesterday by Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, is that the Special Criminal Court should not have ruled out the reasonable possibility that other members of the team knew of or were involved in the rewriting of interview notes.
He will also challenge the court's conclusions that there was no evidence that other interviews were falsified. Specifically, he challenges the court's interpretation of the facts surrounding an interview about mobile phone traffic.
The document detailing contact with mobile phone masts only arrived from Northern Ireland in Monaghan Garda station after Murphy's interviews had been concluded and he had been released.
The court concluded that the information in this document was conveyed by telephone to the investigating gardaí. According to the grounds for appeal, this is against the evidence.
The defence lawyers are also challenging the conclusions of the court in relation to the the corroboration of the admissions.
One of these was the court's finding that "the accused is a republican terrorist of long standing having been convicted of serious offences of that nature in this State and in the United States of America . . . He is a person likely to be involved in terrorist activities of the sort charged against him."
According to Mr O'Higgins's submission, this was based on inadmissible evidence. He will also argue that taking it into account is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence.
The question of the credibility of Mr Terence Morgan will also feature in the appeal. One of the defence arguments is that the court, having found that Mr Morgan perjured himself on one occasion, should not have relied on his evidence on another.
The defence is also challenging the finding in the judgment that Murphy had an incentive to admit that he used his phone as alleged in order to avoid being charged with participation in the bombing itself.
There are a number of technical grounds, concerning the conduct of the case, which will also feature in the appeal.
Mr O'Higgins is also appealing against the severity of the sentence.
Murphy's lawyers were refused leave to appeal by the Special Criminal Court yesterday. They will now seek leave from the Court of Criminal Appeal which will hear their submissions on the grounds as part of the hearing of the application for leave.