Anti Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy has been sent forward for trial accused of false imprisonment of Tánaiste Joan Burton during a water charges protest in Jobstown, Co Dublin.

The Labour Party leader and her entourage had left a graduation event at An Cosan education centre at Jobstown, in Tallaght, just after midday on November 15th, 2014, when a demonstration was held which delayed her for about two hours.

She and her team had been attempting to travel by car to St Thomas’ Church, a short distance away, for the rest of the ceremony when it is alleged violence broke out.

The TD and 17 other people from Dublin appeared before Judge Michael Walsh at Dublin District Court on Monday to be served with books of evidence. They face a variety of charges which include false imprisonment of Ms Burton and her political advisor Karen O’Connell, violent disorder and criminal damage to garda cars, at Fortunestown Road.

State solicitor Rachel Joyce said the DPP directed “trial on indictment”, meaning the case will go before a judge and jury in the circuit court which has can impose lengthier sentences. Books of evidence were handed over by Det Garda Paul Smith of Tallaght station.

Solicitor Michael Finucane, applying for legal aid, told the court that one of his clients who is charged with false imprisonment could “get life potentially”.

The DPP consented to them being returned for trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court where they will face their next hearing on January 22nd. Judge Walsh made the order sending them forward for trial and warned them that if they intended to rely on alibis they must inform the prosecution within 14 days.

Mr Murphy (32) – with an address at The Copse, Woodpark, Ballinteer, Dublin – replied “yes” when asked if he understood. There was no objection to the 18 defendants remaining on bail pending trial.

They have not yet entered pleas, however Murphy has told reporters he intends to fight the case. Legal aid was granted in most of the cases. Barrister Stephen McCrea, who acts for some of the defendants, said the case related to freedom of speech and right to protest.