The judge hearing the Catherine Nevin murder trial has continued her order banning newspapers from commenting on or photographing the accused for the duration of the trial, due to begin next Monday.
Counsel for The Irish Times and, separately, Independent News & Media, publishers of the Evening Herald and Irish Independent, are believed to be considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In the Central Criminal Court, Ms Justice Carroll said she was imposing the restrictions because Mrs Nevin's right to a fair trial "far outweighed" the media's right to comment on her appearance or demeanour. The judge said she was satisfied that under the Constitution, it was her duty to protect the rights of an accused person and that she had the powers to make the order.
Mrs Nevin, who has been remanded on bail to appear for trial next Monday, was not present in court for the ruling.
The reporting restrictions arise from an application for an adjournment - due to reporting on the first trial - made on January 31st, the day Mrs Nevin's retrial was due to begin.
In the application, a distinction was drawn between news reporting of the trial and "colour pieces" which contained comment on Mrs Nevin's appearance and demeanour.
Ms Justice Carroll refused the application on the grounds she did not believe "there was a real or serious risk that Mrs Nevin would not get a fair trial which could not be avoided by appropriate rulings and directions".
However, the judge described "colour pieces" on the first trial, "particularly in the Evening Herald but to a lesser extent in the Irish Independent", as "the worst kind of tabloid journalism designed solely to sell newspapers without any regard to Mrs Nevin's dignity as a human person".
She proposed an order imposing certain restrictions on publicity of the retrial but said she would allow newspapers to make representations to her on this.
The order is to continue until the trial ends. It bans comment on Mrs Nevin's hairstyle, dress, jewellery, nail varnish, reading matter or demeanour in court. It also bans publication of photographs of her in the press. The ban does not apply to radio or television coverage because the judge said no complaint had been made about it.
Ms Justice Carroll also refused an application from The Irish Times to exempt it from the ban or to allow it to publish three pre-trial rulings. She said "even The Irish Times, which was not the worst offender" had commented on Mrs Nevin's clothing, hairstyle, fingernails and choice of reading material in one of its "colour" articles.
In her interim ruling last week imposing the reporting restrictions, the judge found that publicity in the first trial of the former Wicklow publican had been "at times cruel, at times titillating and always intrusive".
She pointed out that Mrs Nevin was presumed innocent and was entitled to be treated with respect.
Her order was intended "to curb the licence taken by some journalists", she said, but there was "never an attempt to prohibit accurate and contemporaneous reporting of the trial".
She said that Mrs Nevin was "entitled to wear to court what she wants without it being dissected" in the press and that her demeanour in court was a matter for the jury to judge.
The judge said none of the parties who had appeared before her was without blame and that other newspapers did not attend even though they were invited.
Noting that "this trial has been fraught with difficulties to date", she said she was hopeful a new trial could now start on Monday.
Following the collapse of the first trial when it was discovered the jury's discussions could be overheard, a second jury was discharged on Tuesday when one of the female jurors complained through her solicitor of "a condition" that prevented her serving.
Ms Justice Carroll has allowed publication of her ruling and certain details on the submissions made relating to it.
Counsel for The Irish Times, Ms Una Ni Raifeartaigh, asked the judge "before invoking this exceptional measure" to consider all newspapers separately. She said there was "no evidence whatsoever" before the court that there was a real or serious risk of an unfair trial arising out of past or future reporting of it in The Irish Times.
She said it had not been suggested that articles published in The Irish Times had been inaccurate or unfair and it was "difficult to see" how a "simply factual" colour article could be seen as prejudicial.
She said that while the court had the right to "step in" should a newspaper offend, it could not "prohibit in advance" and should not impose restrictions unless alternative measures such as appropriate rulings and directions by the trial judge could not be used.
She said The Irish Times' coverage of the trial had been "neither inaccurate nor unfair nor suggestive of guilt".
Counsel for the defence, Mr Patrick MacEntee, argued that the judge was constitutionally obliged to provide against the possibility of further intrusive comment. The court had to deal with "the blanket nature of the intrusiveness", he said, "and whilst one newspaper may not have been a major offender, they all go together to make major, blanket coverage".
Ms Ni Raifeartaigh for The Irish Times said: "Either a publication is inaccurate or offensive or it is not: if it is not, then it cannot be judged to have offended."
Counsel for Independent News & Media and Trinity/Mirror group, Mr Felix McEnroy, argued that since the order did not apply to the broadcast media, it was discriminatory. He pointed out that footage of Mrs Nevin had been broadcast on RTE since the interim order was made.
On Monday, a new jury will be selected to try Mrs Nevin for the murder of her husband Tom at Jack White's Inn, Ballinapark, Co Wicklow, on March 19th, 1996, and on charges of soliciting three men to murder him. Mrs Nevin has denied all the charges against her.