Conor McGregor could face being cross-examined over his sworn statement responding to a court order restraining dissemination of CCTV footage used in a High Court civil trial which culminated in a jury decision that he raped a woman in a Dublin hotel.
John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, told Mr Justice Alexander Owens at the High Court on Thursday he wanted time to consider Mr McGregor’s sworn statement.
Counsel said his side only got that statement, Mr McGregor’s second affidavit concerning the CCTV matter, on Wednesday although it was sworn on February 7th.
He was objecting that Mr McGregor had not complied with one aspect of the court order concerning the CCTV and was “still in breach”. The affidavit was “entirely inadequate” and raised “significant” issues about Mr McGregor’s bona fides, counsel said.
Molde 0 Shamrock Rovers 1 FT as it happened: Teenager Michael Noonan gives Rovers first leg lead
Three companies that shared €4.8m from Arts Council for abandoned IT project named
‘I met Gianmarco the day I finished the Inca trail in Peru. Today he is an Irish citizen’
Here’s why Ireland is on Donald Trump’s tariffs hit list, as sweeping new measures announced
Mr Gordon said his side wanted time to consider its reply and whether to seek to cross-examine Mr McGregor about the affidavit.
Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, said that if Mr Gordon wanted time, he was not objecting to that.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens said he would adjourn the matter for two weeks.
It is understood Mr McGregor has said in his affidavit he has not released, to any person, copies of the CCTV footage or published or circulated it. In his earlier affidavit, he said he had deleted all copies of the CCTV, which had been discovered to him for the civil trial, from his phones and devices.
The mixed martial arts fighter was directed by Mr Justice Owens last month to provide an affidavit about the CCTV after lawyers for Ms Hand raised concerns about social media posts suggesting the footage would be released and sought an order to prevent that.
The judge granted an order restraining Mr McGregor from disseminating the CCTV, saying he considered there was “a real danger” Mr McGregor would disseminate it to an Italian business partner, Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, who reportedly posted on social media that it would be released in January and would change the public’s view of Mr McGregor and boost sales of his stout.
Ms Hand (35), a mother of one from Drimnagh, was awarded almost €250,000 damages against Mr McGregor on foot of the jury decision last November that he raped her 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 her in the hotel after Mr McGregor left.
The CCTV played at the trial showed Ms Hand interacting with the two men in the car park and in the elevator to and from the hotel’s penthouse suite.
Ms Hand denied the footage contradicted her claims, saying she found it a “very hard watch” as she was drunk and stumbling and it did not take away from the fact she was “brutally raped and battered”.
When restraining dissemination of the footage, Mr Justice Owens said the civil jury had “conclusively” determined Mr McGregor raped Ms Hand in the hotel.
Mr McGregor was not entitled to disseminate “bits and pieces” of discovered material and does not get “another run” at the case by throwing out allegations on social media that Ms Hand lied in the case, or by using “surrogates”, he said.
Dissemination of the CCTV would breach Mr McGregor’s obligations under the court’s discovery process, be a civil contempt and a potential breach of Ms Hand’s privacy rights, he said.
The judge made the order after refused an adjournment to allow Mr McGregor more time to provide an affidavit concerning the CCTV issues.
He directed an affidavit be provided by Mr McGregor within a week of the January 16th hearing. Mr McGregor, within that week, provided a very brief affidavit stating he had deleted the footage.
In his follow-up affidavit, it is understood he has said he has not released the footage to any person, including Mr Rapisarda, or circulated it online and that the orders sought by Ms Hand are unnecessary.
