Journal.ie carries this article today
This struck me as an extreme case, to the extent I actually looked up the Court judgement, which contained a couple of facts that seemed relevant to understanding the background but aren't in the article.
"G. is now seventeen years old. Born male, G. has from the aged of fifteen self-identified as a transgender person male to female. Accordingly, at the express behest of G., female gender pronouns are utilised throughout this judgment. It appears relatively little is known about the appellant’s early childhood. She was born in Ireland to parents from overseas."
The fact G was born male strikes me as relevant to understanding the severity of the attack on a female care worker.
And, at the risk of seeming all Tommy Robinson, the fact the parents are from overseas also strikes me as adding to understanding. I don't know, but wonder if it contributed to the lack of information on early childhood.
On the other hand, the article finds space to say G has expressed an ambition to become a porn star. That doesn't strike me as adding as much to understanding the case as the omitted facts.
That said, choosing which facts are relevant, and which are just salacious, is hard in these cases. Am I too critical of the editorial choices in this story?