A 29-YEAR-OLD Dublin woman has been sent forward for trial to the Central Criminal Court accused of engaging in a sex act with a Rottweiler cross breed dog but she cannot be named in media coverage, a judge has ordered.

The woman is accused of a single offence contrary to section 61 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.

The charge states it is alleged she committed an act of buggery with the dog at her home on a date in December 2019.

Today, she appeared at Dublin District Court to be served with a book of evidence.

The Director of Public Prosecutions had directed trial on indictment, said State solicitor Anna Bridgeman.

Judge John Lindsay granted an order sending the woman forward for trial to the Central Criminal Court.

He extended a temporary order, made earlier by Judge Treasa Kelly, that she could not be named by the news media.

The accused, who remains on bail, was told she must notify the prosecution if she intended to use an alibi in her defence. She said “yeah” to indicate that she understood. The judge also said her solicitor would explain the warning to her.

Legal aid was granted to the woman who is on social welfare. It will include representation of junior and senior counsel. Copies of her garda interview video must be furnished to the defence, the judge ordered.

Interim reporting restrictions preventing the media from identifying the accused were imposed when the case first came before the district court in June. Today, her solicitor Tony Collier asked for them to be continued.

Judge Lindsay made the order and a representative of the press asked him to set out the basis for the restrictions.

Collier said the accused was a mother and reporting her identity would affect her children, although he appreciated that she was not accused of causing any harm to them.

Judge Lindsay said he was making the order under Section 93 of the Children Act, and that “if there are children involved they are entitled to reporting restrictions.”

A date for her next hearing has yet to be allocated.

When the case first came before the court her solicitor had applied to Judge Treasa Kellay, then presiding, for the reporting restrictions to be imposed.

He had conceded that his client was not necessarily entitled to that protection, but, he contended, the publication of her name could bring about difficulties.

The nature of the charge and the “revulsion” it might receive from media attention may affect future proceedings, he had argued. He had submitted that this could be prejudicial to her right to a fair trial.

Although there was no legislative provision, the court had discretion to impose reporting restrictions, Collier said.

He had cited High Court and Supreme Court rulings setting out how courts had common law jurisdiction to impose reporting restrictions where there was no legislation provided in the act, under which a prosecution was brought.

Such an order could be made on an interim basis, he had submitted.

He has also told the district court that his client has a defence.

Comments are closed as legal proceedings are ongoing.