The case of a Co Waterford man charged with possession of child pornography was yesterday adjourned until April to allow his legal team to conduct a further technical examination.
Mr Michael Breen (52), Meadowbrook, Tramore, Co Waterford, is charged with the possession, on May 27th, 2002, of 33 images of children, both male and female, with their genital areas exposed. Some of the children were performing sexual acts.
The case arises from Operation Amethyst during which more than 500 gardaí raided over 90 houses and commercial properties throughout the country.
Mr Breen, an electrician and father of two adult children, first appeared in Waterford District Court a fortnight ago, when the matter was adjourned for further directions to be sought from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In court yesterday, State Solicitor, Mr Frank Hutchinson, told Judge William Harnett discovery had been made to the defendant's solicitor, Mr Pat Newell, in the past two weeks.
However, Mr Newell said the first adjournment was to address the matter of jurisdiction.
Mr Hutchinson explained that the DPP would allow the case to be disposed of summarily if the defendant entered a guilty plea. However, Mr Newell said no decision had been made as technical matters had to be checked.
With regard to dealing with the case summarily, Judge Harnett said it was "quite sensible, allowing for the degree of the offence, having regard to the quantum and particular type". He adjourned the case until April 10th and remanded Mr Breen on continuing bail.
A 42-year-old married engineer is also facing charges as a result of Operation Amethyst .
Father-of-one Vincent Bergin (29), of Greenview, Ballyragget, Co Kilkenny, appeared at Castlecomer District Court yesterday, charged with possession of child pornography at his home last May 27th.
An application that his name and address be witheld, in order to ensure a fair trial, was rejected by Judge Mary Martin. Solicitor Mr Michael Lanigan said the man would deny the charge.
The case was adjourned until March 20th, pending directions from the DPP on whether the case should proceed at District or Circuit Court level.