IN his charge to jury members, Mr Justice Moriarty warned they should not assume that because this was a case involving "big people" they should look at very big damages.
The jury should not assume that because the case had certain social repercussions and that reference had been made to places like Locks Restaurant and the Green Room and to social functions at the K Club and the Riverview Tennis Club, involving big people, they should be looking at very big damages.
They should not take the approach that because the parties were people of means with a reasonably affluent lifestyle, particularly the Ryan family, who enjoyed business success, that any damages should be commensurate with the financial and social standing of the parties.
Mr Justice Moriarty asked the jury not to pay regard to the media. A considerable spotlight had developed on the court, to put it mildly. The parties must have realised there would have been publicity but even they might not have anticipated the scale of it.
He told the jury not to be influenced by banner headlines or regard the case as some iconoclastic test of violence to women. There was no public controversy in the case. Both parties were entitled to have the case heard. The jury should not base their evaluation on any media controversy.
He said they should bear in mind that in addition to what was said by witnesses, they should assess their demeanour.
This was a civil case, not a criminal one, and had to be decided on the balance of probabilities. The issues should be confined to the principal cause of the action, namely the alleged assault by Mr Ryan on Ms Rocca.
There were a number of potential defences in such a case. One of the most pertinent in this case was that a person had acted in self defence or in the defence of another.
In the defence case, the paramount issue was the contention that because Ms Rocca waged an unprovoked, violent, and unjustified attack in the bedroom it was therefore open to Mr Ryan to use reasonable force to restrain her and protect Ms Sarah Linton.
The law stated that apart from self defence, one was entitled to use reasonable force to restrain a person when protecting another. However, it was not to be used as a means of exacting revenge but was to be used to seek to defuse the situation.
If the jury considered that was the situation then it was necessary to consider whether Mr Ryan used no more force than was reasonably necessary.
There was conflicting evidence and submissions on the circumstances Mr Ryan was faced with. Mr Nicholas Kearns SC, for Ms Rocca, had said that whatever may have happened, the level of violence used was disproportionate.
Even if there was a necessity to restrain her because she was in temperate and violent, Mr Kearns had said it could not go to the force of a broken nose, black eye, and bruising.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Mr Ryan, had urged the jury to consider the evidence of Dr Stephen Murphy, Ms Rocca's doctor, and have regard to the actual circumstances in which Mr Ryan found himself. Mr Cooney had said there must be some level of leverage or flexibility to allow restraint.
The judge said the jury was entitled, as a matter of law, to have regard to the situation Mr Ryan found himself in, but was not entitled to permit a disproportionate level of response.
The question to be considered was whether if, in defence of the third party, Mr Ryan used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the situation he found himself in or whether he "went over the top" and inflicted injuries which went beyond the reasonable defence of the third party.
The judge said if jury members decided there was assault, in measuring damages, they were entitled to look at the aspects of provocation in limiting or diminishing the damages.
The jury was not entitled to give damages solely as a punishment or a warning to other males that they must not engage in violence to women. The law sought to compensate, not to punish.
If jury members agreed there were to be damages, they must then consider the issue of whether Ms Rocca's own conduct by way of provocation should justify lowering her damages. The law said a jury may do away with or reduce any aggravated damages if it felt she brought it on herself by provocation or by some action which excused the conduct of Mr Ryan. This was denied by Mr Kearns.
Mr Ryan and Ms Rocca, under stressful examination, found it hard not to take "gratuitous side swipes" at the other party for example, Ms Rocca's allegations about Mr Ryan's habitual drinking and his reference to her "cocktailish" dress being inappropriate at the informal party. There was so much that was on the fringes of the case.