Get all the very latest news in Ireland straight to your email every single day Sign up! Thank you for subscribing See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Murderer Graham Dwyer is to challenge his conviction on the basis samples of his DNA were retrieved from bin without a warrant.

Dwyer was jailed for life after being found unanimously guilty by a jury earlier this year for the brutal killing of Elaine O’Hara .

Childcare worker Elaine vanished in August 2012 after being discharged from a psychiatric hospital.

The Irish Times reports that now, as part of his appeal into the safety of his conviction, the former architect is also challenging on the grounds the jury were influenced by adverse publicity during the murder trial.

The killer’s law team are also claiming an exact cause of death was never established.

Dwyer is expected to raise concerns around how his trial was handled and how the jury may have been affected by factors outside the court room.

The Court of Appeal is set to hear the appeal in the coming months.

During the trial, the jury was shown videos of Dwyer inflicting knife injuries of women, including O’Hara, who shared his interest in extreme sexual practices.

Stories created by the father of three revealing his desire to abduct and murder women were also shown to the jury.

Part of the appeal is also expected to focus on information by an unidentified witness.

The anonymous source made contact with gardai after reading about Elaine’s skeletal remains being found at Killakee mountain in South Dublin in 2013 by a woman walking her dogs.

Dwyer was identified as a suspect by the confidential source and it was suggested to gardai the man, known only as “Graham”, worked as an architect on Dublin’s Baggot Street.

They also revealed he had an interest in sexual extremes, including bondage, sadism and masochism and had previously spoken of his wish to stab women.

An officer later obtained DNA evidence from a plastic bottle found in a bin outside Dwyer’s home.

His lawyers are expected to use this as part of their appeal, claiming evidence was unlawfully obtained without a warrant.

The State is expected to use case law to reject the claims that a warrant was needed before this evidence was gathered.