The legal team for mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor has withdrawn a bid to introduce fresh evidence in his appeal against a decision in a civil case in which a woman accused him of raping her.
Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, sued the Irish sports star over an incident at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018.
The 36-year-old was said to have “brutally raped and battered” Ms Hand in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel.
During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand.
After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault.
Ms Hand was awarded €248,603.60 (about £206,000) in damages.
McGregor was ordered by a judge to pay Ms Hand €100,000 (£85,000) of the damages and €200,000 (£170,000) of an expected €1.3m (£1.1m) in legal costs before the appeal, which the court heard had been done.
Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, lost her case against another man, James Lawrence, who she accused of assaulting her by allegedly having sex without her consent at the same hotel.
McGregor has since sought an appeal, which was initially expected to include new evidence.
However, on Tuesday morning, the Court of Appeal in Dublin heard that McGregor would no longer be relying on additional evidence that had not been given to the initial trial for his appeal.
That evidence was reported to relate to two neighbours of Ms Hand who had alleged they had seen her be assaulted by a former partner.
However, his legal team said that after receiving new applications relating to the evidence to be given by pathologist Professor Jack Crane, they could no longer sustain that ground of appeal.
John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, said it was “frankly not appropriate” for the ground to be withdrawn on that basis, adding he had only been told of the development 10 minutes earlier.
He objected to the withdrawal of the ground and argued he should still be allowed to cross-examine the neighbours.
He said his client had been “put through the wringer yet again” and that the court should not permit the appellant to “waltz in here and then they can walk away from this”.
Mr Gordon said there could potentially be matters relating to perjury arising out of the developments.
Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, alongside Mr Justice Brian O’Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, said it cannot be the case that further submissions relating to Professor Crane could solely be the reason to withdraw the appeal matter of the neighbours’ evidence.
Read more:
Irish politicians reject McGregor’s bid for presidency
Tesco ditches booze linked to McGregor after rape case
McGregor speaks after losing civil case
Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said he was applying to withdraw the matter on a “holistic view” of the whole case and after taking instructions.
Ms Justice Kennedy said it was “unsatisfactory” that it was being brought to the court at a late stage, but permitted the withdrawing of the ground.
Following the withdrawal of that application, Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, advanced the remaining four grounds of the appeal – largely relating to the right to silence and “no comment” answers to questions during garda interviews.
He raised the issue of the cross-examination of McGregor during the original trial by Mr Gordon.
He said an “enormous amount of no comment material” had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end.
Mr Farrell said that Mr Gordon had raised more than 100 “no comment” answers given by McGregor while being interviewed by gardai on the basis that it related to a position put forward by the fighter that he had been fully co-operative with gardai.
Ireland correspondent
This was a good old-fashioned courtroom bombshell.
Nikita Hand arrived at the Four Courts with her partner, walking past a rolling maul of TV cameras and photographers and a group of supporters with a large “We Stand With Nikita Hand” banner.
The media – not expecting Conor McGregor himself to attend – were on high alert for the arrival of the two new witnesses, Samantha O’Reilly and Steven Cummins.
Former neighbours of Ms Hand, they were expected to tell the court that they may have witnessed her being assaulted by her partner after the hotel encounter with McGregor – explaining her subsequent bruising.
But they did not arrive. Inside the small, packed court it immediately became apparent why. McGregor’s legal team said they were withdrawing the fresh evidence – there were audible gasps and startled looks exchanged among the benches.
The testimony of the neighbours had filled reams of Irish newsprint in the weeks ahead of this highly-anticipated appeal – now it was discarded immediately for various legal reasons.
Ms Hand’s counsel was furious – demanding an apology and muttering the word “perjury”. He had only found out 10 minutes earlier, he declared – an unacceptable situation. Ms Hand had “been put through the wringer” by all of this, he said.
The mixed martial arts fighter’s appeal is now proceeding, but on reduced grounds. As so often with Conor McGregor, whether in an octagon or a courtroom, the unexpected is never far away.
Mr Farrell said this was allowed to proceed by the trial judge, with Mr Justice Alexander Owens telling Mr Gordon multiple times to get to that specific purpose of that line of questioning.
However, putting forward the appeal, McGregor’s counsel said this did not occur – and was in itself based on an “entirely incorrect” paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said.
Mr Farrell said his client had said that he had made a comment about wanting to “get everything correct” in seeking out the “best advice” from his solicitors – rather than saying he had been fully co-operative with gardai.
He said the plaintiff had used this to construct a “hook” that McGregor had said he wanted to tell everything to gardai, adding: “With respect, that’s not what it says.”
Mr Farrell said it was not the case that McGregor had said he had told gardai everything.
The proceedings, including Mr Lawrence’s appeal against a decision not to be awarded costs, continue.
