I wish to express my profound regret and remorse for my involvement in the incident which has caused untold heartache to so many people, and in particular Brian Murphy's parents, brother and sisters.
I also wish to acknowledge that my behaviour on the night was totally unacceptable, that my conviction for violent disorder is valid, and I wish to sincerely apologise to all those who have been hurt or affected by my actions or the fall out from them, and in particular my own parents and family.
A day does not go by when I don't reflect upon the events of that night.
If it were possible, I would do anything to turn the clock back.
However, I also wish to emphasise that I did not cause the death of Brian Murphy.
I have always asserted my innocence of that offence and I was prepared to fully defend the charge and to make a positive case in my defence.
There are a number of important issues which have arisen out of the investigation and prosecution of offences arising from Brian Murphy's death, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to deal with them today.
There is, however, one matter that I must address now.
Last Saturday night RTÉ news carried a report that the State was dropping the case and quoted informed sources that the reason was that it would have been difficult to prosecute the case without the evidence of Prof Harbison.
Insofar as the report may suggest, however inadvertently, that the only reason why I am not being tried for manslaughter here today is because a witness is ill, it is, in my view, unfair.
At 6.15pm last Friday, my solicitors, Daniel Spring and Co, received a fax from the Chief Prosecution Solicitor of a new statement made by the State Pathologist, Dr Marie Cassidy, concerning the death of Brian Murphy.
Within an hour I was told that the State was dropping the case.
It is my belief that this new statement by the State pathologist was the real reason why the case was dropped. This belief was confirmed in court this morning by counsel for the State.
Prof Harbison has been the State pathologist for 30 years. He was a professor of forensic medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons and lectured in medical jurisprudence at Trinity College Dublin. His eminence is such that his reputation is of significant international standing. He had a long and distinguished career.
On April 7th, the last day of the legal term, my solicitor was served with a statement from a Dr Lyons, who is Prof Harbison's treating doctor. Dr Lyons said that Prof Harbison was ill and not fit to give evidence.
The State meanwhile had served notice on my solicitor that they intended to argue that the original report as set out in the book of evidence, and the transcript of Prof Harbison's evidence at the previous trial, should be put before the jury as evidence.
However, a study of Prof Harbison's post-mortem notes, draft statement and final statement as contained in the book of evidence showed up inconsistencies. The only way that these could be adequately explored was by cross examination.
In some ways the reports of Prof Harbison and Dr Cassidy almost seem to be describing a different incident.
For instance, Dr Cassidy believes that alcohol induced apnoer was a significant factor in the death. In evidence Prof Harbison said he was not familiar with the term post-traumatic apnea.
Prof Harbison thought the inhalation of blood was a contributing cause of death. Dr Cassidy disagreed.
Prof Harbison said the injuries to the face involved considerable violence. Dr Cassidy described them as relatively minor.
But I believe that if Dr Cassidy had produced such a report at the time of the incident, it is questionable whether anyone would even have been charged with manslaughter.
I believe this manslaughter charge was untenable and not justified.
Clearly the State do too.
After nearly six years it is my intention to try to rebuild my life. I ask the media to respect my privacy and that of my family as I try to do so.
Thank you.