POSSIBLY one of the most extraordinary cases to have been tried at the Four Courts in recent times was how defence counsel Mr Garrett Cooney SC described the case being taken by Ms Michelle Rocca against Mr Cathal Ryan.
In his closing speech to the jury, Mr Cooney, representing Mr Ryan, said that at the outset it had been stated that the case was not going to be a vicarage tea party, but it seemed in some respects to be a Roman holiday. He said that the first victims were the five children.
He was summing up on the sixth day of the action by Ms Rocca in which she claimed she was assaulted in a bedroom at a party at Blackhall Stud, near Clane, Co Kildare, on March 22nd, 1992. Mr Ryan (37) denied the claims and it was submitted that, if he did the acts complained of there was provocation.
The case was marked by bitterness and recrimination. What they were watching was a magnification and a replaying in slow motion of what happened during three to five minutes in the bedroom in Blackhall Stud.
The two central issues were: did Ms Rocca assault Ms Sarah Linton on that night and, if so, did Mr Ryan use reasonable force in the protection of Ms Linton in the circumstances.
The court may have heard of some squalid, sordid or reprehensible incidents, but one of the most consistent features was the "unlimited attack made (in court) on Mr Ryan. Ms Rocca missed no opportunity to blacken his name and her counsel had referred to him in the most derogatory terms.
Ms Rocca's counsel, when opening the case, had painted a picture of Mr Ryan as the spoiled son of a wealthy family. But the evidence established him as a man of considerable achievement and substance in his own right. One did not become the captain of a Boeing 747 by simply being a spoiled son.
He had helped to established Ryanair, which was extremely successful. These facts had to be taken into account rather than the venomous picture painted by Ms Rocca and to some extent by her counsel.
Mr Ryan properly acknowledged his responsibilities to his, daughter and had contributed to her support and maintenance to the sum of about £100,000. Mr Ryan was not claiming great credit for this but it was necessary to mention it to introduce some balance.
One of the saddest aspects of the case was the collapse of the relationship between Ms Rocca and Mr Ryan.
Ms Rocca had said the relationship continued right up to the date of the incident. That was an extraordinary claim, Mr Cooney said. She claimed that she was engaged for one reason to justify her presence in the bedroom. Mrs June Moloney said she knew of no relationship between them in 1992.
The photographs of Ms Rocca taken two days after the incident were dramatic but they had to be approached with a calm attitude.
Dr Stephen Murphy had given evidence about the injuries. Without attempting to minimise the injuries, the jury had to keep a sense of proportion. Dr Murphy said that many of the injuries were superficial.
The major injury was the fracture of Ms Rocca's nose. Her counsel said that Mr Ryan had "broken her nose" and this was said to create antipathy towards Mr Ryan.
The jury had to consider all the evidence of Mr Ryan, of Mr David Marshall, and above all of Ms Linton.
"She was the real victim. She has the emotional scars remaining with her for the rest of her life," said Mr Cooney. "Wasn't she a lady? Wasn't she wholesome? Wasn't she restrained in her evidence? She told it as it was."
Ms Rocca agreed she went into the room hurling obscenities. Mr Ryan was protecting Ms Linton, not only as it was right, but he had a duty as a man to protect her. If he had lain in bed like Mr Marshall, "wouldn't he be sneered at9 Was he not doing anything any man who was worthy of being a man would do?"
Ms Rocca's counsel had asked Mr Ryan if he would apologise. Mr Cooney asked how he could apologise for something he did not do.