A YOUNG mother has been sent for trial accused of having sex with a dog at her Dublin home.
The woman (29) had a book of evidence served on her when she appeared in Dublin District Court today.
Judge John Lindsay sent the bestiality case forward to the Central Criminal Court. He banned identification of the accused, to protect her children, following an application by her lawyer.
The woman is charged with a single offence contrary to section 61 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
The charge alleges she committed an act of buggery with an animal, a mixed breed dog, which was part Rottweiler.
The offence allegedly happened at her home address on a date in December 2019. The DPP directed trial on indictment.
Today was the third time the case had been listed in court and the accused’s first appearance in person.
State solicitor Anna Bridgeman said the book of evidence was ready and the DPP was consenting to the accused being sent for trial to the next sittings of the Central Criminal Court on the single charge.
The woman had been granted bail at a garda station and Judge Linsday said existing terms would continue.
Free legal aid was granted previously, and this also continued, to cover junior and senior counsel at trial.
Judge Lindsay told the accused that if she was going to rely on an alibi she must give written details with 14 days’ notice to the prosecution.
The woman, dressed in a black cardigan, white top and grey trousers, said “yeah” to indicate that she understood. The judge also said her solicitor would explain the alibi warning to her.
Judge Linsday ordered copies of the accused's garda interview video to be furnished to the defence.
Defence solicitor Tony Collier applied for reporting restrictions. Judge Treasa Kelly had made an interim order for the accused's anonymity at a previous hearing and Mr Collier asked that this should be “in place going forward”.
Judge Lindsay made the order and a media representative asked him to set out the basis.
Mr 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’s Act, and that “if there are children involved they are entitled to reporting restrictions”.
Evidence of the woman’s arrest, charge and caution was furnished to the court in a document on the first court date in June. None of the alleged facts of the case have yet been disclosed to the court.
On the first date, Judge Kelly had imposed an interim order prohibiting the identification of the accused.
This was after Mr Collier contended that the “revulsion” that the nature of the charge might attract could affect her right to a fair trial. He conceded that his client was not necessarily entitled to anonymity and although there was no legislative provision, the court had discretion to impose reporting restrictions.