VIDEO EVIDENCE AGAINST former Irish rugby international Brendan Mullin for stealing a high-end fragrance is “inconclusive”, his solicitor contended during legal argument over witness statement delays.

The ex-rugby star, who won 55 Irish caps between 1984 and 1995 before moving into financial services, is accused of stealing a Hermès perfume worth €158 from the Brown Thomas department store on Dublin’s Grafton Street on 15 May last.

He faced his third hearing on this charge when he appeared before Judge Áine Clancy at Dublin District Court today to enter a plea.

Defence solicitor John O’Doherty said that in July, the court granted an order for disclosure of a statement.

In response, the court sergeant said there was no more material to provide and that the investigating garda had already handed over a summary of the evidence and CCTV.

The solicitor described the video footage as inconclusive.

A prosecuting solicitor said there were other statements relating to the origin of the CCTV evidence.

Following discrepancies over outstanding statements, the judge refused the defence solicitor’s request to strike out the case.

However, she agreed to impose a three-week deadline and marked the case peremptory against the State, meaning the case could be struck out on the next date if disclosure had not been complied with by then.

Mullin (62) of Albert Lodge, Stillorgan Road, Donnybrook, Dublin 4, was remanded on continuing bail to appear on 20 October to enter a plea.

He sat silently at the back of the public gallery and was not required to address the court.

He is not on legal aid, so the widespread disruption to criminal proceedings in response to legal aid payment reforms did not affect his case.

Garda Nathan Cox of Pearse Street is prosecuting him on a single charge under section four of the Theft and Fraud Act. The alleged offence, at District Court level, carries a maximum sentence of 12 months and a fine of up to €3,000 on conviction.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has, “based on an evaluation of €158,” directed summary disposal in the District Court, rather than sending the case forward to the Circuit Court, which has wider sentencing powers.

The District Court has accepted jurisdiction.