Conor McGregor seeking to use certain evidence from civil rape case ‘to suit himself’, High Court told

It appears Conor McGregor is trying to use pieces of evidence from the High Court civil case that found he raped Nikita Hand to “suit himself” in the “court of public opinion”, a judge has said.

Ms Hand, who a High Court civil jury found was raped by Mr McGregor in a Dublin hotel, wants a judge to restrain the publication of CCTV footage used in the trial.

Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, told Mr Justice Alexander Owens today that the CCTV was “of central importance” in the trial and he asked for an adjournment of the application by Ms Hand to restrain its publication. Mr McGregor has not disseminated the CCTV to an Italian business associate and wants an opportunity to put matters on affidavit, he said.

The CCTV played to the jury shows Ms Hand interacting with Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence in the car park and in the elevator to and from the hotel’s penthouse suite.

Ms Hand denied under cross-examination the footage contradicted her claims and said she found it a “very hard watch” as she was drunk and stumbling. It did not take away from the fact she was “brutally raped and battered”, she said.

Today, Mr Farrell said it is a “very curious idea” that evidence in the case “goes into a black box at the end of the case”.

Mr Justice Owens commented that it seemed Mr McGregor “by winks and nudges” wants to get “into the court of public opinion” and to “selectively use pieces of the case to suit himself”.

Mr Farrell said he wanted to put matters on affidavit and there were inaccuracies in the information put before the court to support the application.

He said Mr McGregor has the CCTV and is “perfectly entitled” to have it in his possession. He anticipated Mr McGregor would be saying he had the CCTV at home and it was likely his partner would have seen it and seen him watching it.

It was a “remarkable contention” to say he was not entitled to discuss it with his partner.

The CCTV was seen in open court and was subject of extensive comment during the trial, he said.

Nikita Hand, through her lawyers, also asked the judge today to direct an interim payment to her lawyers of half of her €1.3 million legal costs.

The judge is also considering whether to take any action against Mr McGregor over a social media post by Mr McGregor after the jury verdict, which the judge said amounted to describing the court as a “kangaroo court”.

The judge will issue his decision on these issues at 2pm on Thursday.

Ms Hand (35) was awarded almost €250,000 damages last November after a High Court jury upheld her civil claim she was raped by the Mixed Martial Arts fighter in the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford on December 9th 2018.

The jury found James Lawrence (35), of Rafter’s Road, Drimnagh, a friend of Mr McGregor’s, had not assaulted Ms Hand in the hotel after Mr McGregor left the premises.

Neither Ms Hand nor Mr McGregor were in court today for a hearing to address various issues, including final costs orders, issues arising from social media posts by Mr McGregor following the jury verdict and the injunction application.

Counsel for Mr McGregor also indicated they would be lodging an appeal to the original High Court decision.

Mr Farrell said the grounds of appeal included matters that arose during the hearing of an application made in the absence of the jury and the wording of questions put to the jury. 

The fact the jury were asked to decide whether Ms Hand was assaulted, rather than sexually assaulted, raised issues concerning the interpretation of the verdict, he said.

Earlier this week, the judge permitted barrister Siún Leonowicz, for Ms Hand, to serve Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence with short notice of an injunction application, returnable to Thursday, concerning the CCTV footage viewed during the civil trial.

In documents supporting the application, Ms Hand’s solicitor Dave Coleman said the CCTV footage appears to have been disseminated by Mr McGregor. That dissemination initially appeared to have been limited to Mr McGregor’s partner, Dee Devlin who had “inappropriately” commented on its content in a social media post last November, he said.

He said articles had appeared in the Sunday Independent and Sunday World newspapers on January 5th in which an Italian business associate of Mr McGregor’s indicated the “imminent publication” of the CCTV footage.

Mr Coleman said this was to boost sales of an alcoholic beverage owned by Mr McGregor and distributed in Italy by the associate, Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda.

From the content of the media articles, it is clear thar Mr McGregor intends to disseminate “selected” pieces of evidence given at the trial, Mr Coleman said.

The only purpose of that is to undermine and discredit the jury’s verdict and to gain financially, they say.

Mr Coleman said his side had sought undertakings from Mr McGregor not to disseminate the CCTV but those had not been provided. As a result, they had initiated the injunction application.

Today, Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, asked that the costs order against Mr McGregor should include a certificate for two senior counsel, reserved and discovery costs, and the costs of stenography. Counsel also asked the judge to direct an interim costs payment, noting that Mr McGregor is “very well-resourced” compared to Ms Hand.

The judge noted a draft bill of costs provided by Ms Hand’s side to Mr McGregor sought €1.3 million. Mr Boland said his side was seeking half of that sum as an interim payment.

Mr Boland said the court was “scandalised” by the social media posts of Mr McGregor in the wake of the verdict and Mr McGregor was seeking to relitigate the case “and using or abusing” his large social media following.

The judge noted it had been said by Mr McGregor that Ms Hand was a liar, that the court “effectively conducted its business as a kangaroo court” and the jurors ignored the court’s direction. Mr McGregor had indicated he was going to appeal and, if he succeeded, it would come before a different jury.

The judge queried whether a defendant can complain the plaintiff is a liar and seek a new trial before a different jury when there was all this “nonsense” “swinging around the internet”.

Addressing the injunction application, Mr Boland said the CCTV was released by the Commissioner of An Garda Siochana for use in a civil trial, they were part of the disclosure from gardaí on foot of a High Court order and were only released for the purpose of a civil trial.

He said lawyers for Mr McGregor had informed his side in a letter of January 7th that he had not disseminated any CCTV material. There was no undertaking provided by Mr McGregor that he would not disseminate the material despite an request for such undertaking from Ms Hand’s lawyers on January 6th, he said.

Ms Hand had not been provided with the CCTV footage in advance of the trial but had viewed it, counsel said. It appeared Mr McGregor had somehow secured a copy of CCTV footage and Ms Hand’s side wanted him to return that.