The woman is accused of a single sexual offence against the dog at her home in December 2019
The accused (29) was due to be sent for trial today but she did not appear in court and Judge Treasa Kelly remanded her on continuing bail in her absence.
The woman is accused of 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.
Today was the second time the bestiality case was listed before Dublin District Court and a book of evidence was due to be served so the woman could be sent forward to the circuit court.
A state solicitor told Judge Kelly the book of evidence was ready, but defence solicitor Tony Collier said the woman was not in court.
Judge Kelly adjourned the case for the accused to be present for service of the book of evidence on a later date.
Temporary reporting restrictions preventing the media from identifying the accused will remain in place until the next date, when the judge said she would rule on a defence application for anonymity.
The woman’s case first came before the court in June, after directions from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) were obtained and she was charged.
She was granted garda station bail before the case’s first date, when she was not required to be present due to Covid-19 restrictions in court.
She will have to attend for the service of the book of evidence.
Evidence of the woman’s arrest, charge and caution was furnished to the court in a document on the last date. None of the alleged facts of the case have yet been disclosed to the court.
The DPP has directed trial on indictment.
The interim reporting restriction was granted on the last date after Mr Collier contended that the publication of his client’s name could bring about difficulties.
The nature of the charge and the "revulsion" it might attract from media attention may affect future proceedings, he argued. He submitted that this could be prejudicial to 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.
He 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, on an interim basis.
Judge Kelly said she would have to consider the case law before reaching a decision and made an interim order prohibiting the accused's identification.
Free legal aid was previously granted after the court was told the woman was on social welfare.