The 22-year-old woman, whose identity is suppressed by a court order, did not appear in Armidale Local Court yesterday, and remains in custody in a women’s prison in Sydney.

Yesterday, the court was told investigators had obtained fresh material from the accused’s mobile phone, which was seized following her arrest in Sydney last year.

“There has been a considerable amount of material that has been served in recent days,” Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) solicitor Sue Hynes told the court.

“That is, some 43,000 text messages that have been downloaded from the accused’s phone.”

Armidale detectives arrested the woman in January and charged her with seven sex offences, including persistent sexual abuse of a child – a charge which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The woman was employed as a staff member, but not a teacher, at the secondary school in the New England in 2015.

She was suspended from duty with the school in term three, last year, after detectives were called in to investigate allegations involving the woman and students.

A strike force was subsequently formed by officers, which culminated in charges after three alleged victims came forward.

All three complainants are under the age of 18, and in January, the DPP requested a non-publication order on the case to ensure other potential complainants could come forward.

Yesterday, Magistrate Michael Holmes finalised a strict 11-point suppression order on much of the detail surrounding the case, ruling the name, location, and the type and profile of the school is prohibited from being identified, by order of the court.

A non-publication order also remains on the named of the alleged victims and the accused.

“I find the order is necessary for the proper administration of justice,” he ruled, adding it was necessary to safeguard the public interest, prevent undue hurt or stress to the alleged victims, and so as not to prejudice the case.

The 22-year-old has been behind bars since her arrest but has not been required to enter a plea while the brief of evidence is being considered.

“That matter will need to be considered in detail,” Ms Hynes told the court yesterday, adding the text messages had been served on the woman’s defence team.

“I’d be asking for the matter to be adjourned for negotiations.”

Solicitor Clive Sharkey did not oppose the adjournment application and said his client did not need to appear via video link.

“I talked to her this morning and advised that the matter would be adjourned,” he told the court.

Mr Holmes said he wanted to see the matter proceed to committal for trial or sentence on the next occasion and granted both sides an adjournment to April.

“Bail not applied for, it’s refused,” he said.