MICHELLE ROCCA took out the single page torn from a shorthand notebook and unfolded it as she stood in the courthouse doorway. "I'm going to read from this," she said quietly, "because I'm nervous."
After more than six hours in the clammy tension of court number 4 the press circus turned travelling circus, trailing Ms Rocca and her entourage through the warren of the Four Courts.
"She's delighted with the verdict," her sister Laura said over her shoulder as they headed for their consultation room.
Ms Rocca herself looked more shell shocked than delighted. "I would first of all like to thank the jury most sincerely," she read from the handwritten note in a storm of camera flashes. "They found I was assaulted, which had been denied. Also they found I had been treated with excessive force."
Van Morrison was at her side and had been waiting in the consultation room. "I want to thank my legal team. I want to thank Van, my family and friends for "their loyal support," she said. She finished her statement with "no further comment".
A journalist lobbed another question: what did she think of the media? She started to answer, to the consternation of her solicitor, Mr Gerard Kean, and her sister Laura. "Bring her back in. Bring her back in," they shouted.
The media were just doing their job, she said graciously, before the strong arm of her lawyer guided her away from the cameras. "We're satisfied we got justice," Mr Kean said. Van Morrison declined any questions with a curt "That's it. That's it."
Earlier, the press stood outside the pale wooden door of consultation room number five, where the Rocca crew had retired, trying to catch morsels of chat.
There was laughter from inside. As the uninvited guests at the party we tried to gauge if "merriment" might be an accurate description of the mood inside.
One unfortunate journalist had been asked by his editor to put a specific question to Van and Michelle: what would they be doing for Valentine's Day? He was out of luck.
A few minutes after Ms Rocca's brief statement, her former lover, Mr Cathal Ryan, emerged to face the press. In the glare of a TV light he looked into the distance. "It's been a very, very long and arduous two weeks," he said.
"It's most regrettable in terms of what happened in relation to the incident. It's more regrettable in terms of this circus that has affected innocent bystanders, including children and Miss Sarah Linton. There were definitely no winners in this case."
He was ushered to a bronze Mercedes which sped out of the grounds of the Four Courts.
About five minutes later Ms Rocca and her friends and family were bundled into a Dublin registered black Merc and rushed out, to the delight of a gang of small boys on rollerblades at the gates.
Friday's hearing could lengthy argument about question of costs because of "the level of damages awarded to Ms Michelle Rocca.
Mr Justice Moriarty did not deal with the issue yesterday, but the total costs on a High Court scale are estimated to be near £200,000.
The argument could centre on whether legal costs should be based at High Court or Circuit Court levels. The Circuit Court is limited to an award of up to £30,000 in damages, and lawyers' fees are lower than they would be in the High Court. In a case taken to the High Court by a litigant, a damages award is expected to exceed £30,000.
In normal circumstances, where a defendant has lost a case, he or she is liable to pay the full cost of both legal teams. However, in this case, because the award did not reach the £30,000 High Court "baseline," Mr Cathal Ryan's lawyers are entitled to argue that he should pay costs at Circuit Court level.
If costs are allowed at Circuit Court level, there would be a substantial difference in the fees being sought by lawyers on the High Court scale. This could lead to further argument as to which side should pay this difference.
