The Court of Appeal is to refer, for consideration of possible perjury, material related to fresh evidence sought to be admitted on behalf of Conor McGregor, but later withdrawn. The material was related to his appeal against a High Court civil jury finding in favour of Nikita Hand, who alleged he raped her in a Dublin hotel.
The evidence, in which Ms Hand’s neighbour claimed she witnessed a physical altercation between Ms Hand and her then partner within hours of the encounter between Ms Hand and Mr McGregor in the Beacon hotel was dramatically withdrawn by his side at the outset of his appeal on Tuesday.
Ms Hand had described the evidence as “lies” and said Stephen Redmond never assaulted her during their relationship.
Mr McGregor’s appeal over the November 2024 jury finding concluded on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the court heard a linked appeal by James Lawrence (36), Rafter’s Road, Drimnagh, over a refusal to award him costs against Ms Hand following the jury decision he had not assaulted her after Mr McGregor left the hotel on December 9th, 2018. Judgment on both appeals will be given on a later date.
READ MORE
After Mr Lawrence’s appeal concluded, the court rose to allow John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, inform Mr McGregor’s side about his intended address on the withdrawn evidence.
When it returned, Mark Mulholland KC, for Mr McGregor, said his side had been given documents Ms Hand’s side had intended to use in cross-examining her neighbour, Samantha O’Reilly.
Mr Gordon’s application related mainly to those materials against a backdrop of suggesting a criminal investigation should follow on Ms O’Reilly’s intended evidence, counsel said. This was about “getting on the record”, and in the media under the cloak of privilege, points Mr Gordon intended to make and to establish he was correct in the assertions he made.
This was not appropriate and, if Ms Hand wished to take this matter further, there were other means to do so, he said.
Mr Gordon said Mr Mulholland had “again pre-empted” him and argued the court had a wide discretion and inherent jurisdiction concerning how to deal with withdrawal of evidence.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said he was “taking to heart” Mr Mulholland’s comment this could involve material that, if deployed in the application, could prejudice a possible criminal prosecution.
Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the court would view the material in chambers. It was also provided with correspondence from Mr McGregor’s solicitors to consider.
When the court resumed, Mr Gordon asked it to add costs terms to the withdrawal of the evidence and refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
He asked for orders awarding costs, on the highest solicitor client level, to his side related to the application to adduce and withdraw the evidence.
The fresh evidence was publicly disseminated and published widely, he said. It was not correct for Mr McGregor’s side to say they had not suggested Ms Hand was telling lies because, in an email by Ms O’Reilly to Mr McGregor’s solicitors, there was a “direct accusation” against Ms Hand.
The fresh evidence application was not just to adduce further evidence but to undermine Ms Hand’s reputation pending the hearing of the appeal, he said. Ms Hand had sworn an affidavit calling the evidence out as lies and was entitled to her opportunity to call that out in this court but the withdrawal prevented her throwing out the “highly disparaging and unfair” criticisms of her.
The court has power to refer the matter to the DPP and should do so because that would show the court’s concern about the apparent abuse of its own processes, counsel said.
In response, Mr Mulholland said the costs issues should await the outcome of the appeal. Mr Gordon’s referral application was a matter for the court, he added.
In its ruling at 2pm, Ms Justice Kennedy said the court would refer the matter to the DPP and would inform the parties what material it intended to refer in that regard.
She said costs orders would be made following the court’s judgment on the appeal.
Ms Hand, accompanied by her partner Gary Foy and mother Deborah, was in court for the appeal hearing.
Mr McGregor appealed a civil jury’s finding last November that he assaulted Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel, Sanydford, Dublin, on December 9th, 2018. Ms Hand was awarded €250,000 damages and got her legal costs, estimated around €1.3 million, against Mr McGregor.
The 36-year-old mother of one told the jury Mr McGregor raped her after she and a friend went with him and his friend Mr Lawrence to the hotel. She said she told Mr McGregor she did not want to have intercourse with him, he “would not take no for an answer”, she was wearing a tampon at the time and would not have sex during her period.
Mr McGregor denied rape and said he and Ms Hand had “fully consensual” and “vigorous”, “sex. He was shocked when later shown photos of bruising on Ms Hand, had not caused them and there was no tampon, he said.
Ms Hand denied Mr Lawrence’s claim she had consensual sex with him after Mr McGregor left the hotel.
When charging the jury, Mr Justice Owens told them, if a person proves they were subject by another person to non-consensual sexual activity, that is the tort or civil wrong of assault.
The jury found Mr McGregor assaulted Ms Hand and Mr Lawrence had not assaulted her.
For his appeal, Mr McGregor claimed fresh evidence came into his possession after the case which provided a “plausible” explanation for bruising on Ms Hand’s body noted by a doctor who examined her on December 10th 2018. That included sworn claims by Samantha O’Reilly that, from a bedroom in her house, she observed a physical row between Ms Hand and her then partner Stephen Redmond at their home on the night of December 9/10th 2018.
At the outset of Mr McGregor’s appeal on Tuesday, his lawyers said, arising from a consideration of case law and reservations expressed by the court about the admissibility of other evidence from former Northern Ireland State Pathologist Dr Jack Crane, they were withdrawing their applications to adduce that evidence. Mr Mulholland said Dr Crane’s evidence was considered necessary to corroborate the neighbours’ evidence.
Mr Gordon said he was “shocked”, Ms Hand had been “put through the wringer yet again” and had answered the claims by saying they were “lies”, which he said was now conceded, and indicated there might be an issue about referring matters to the DPP for consideration of perjury.
Mr McGregor’s appeal proceeded with submissions from the sides whether or not there were errors of law in how Mr Gordon and the trial judge approached Mr McGregor’s “no comment” responses when interviewed by gardai after giving them a statement in response to Ms Hand’s claim of rape. A second ground concerned whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury be asked to answer whether or not Mr McGregor “assaulted” Ms Hand rather than “sexually assaulted” her.
In submissions on Mr Lawrence’s costs appeal, John Fitzgerald SC said the trial judge had, in his costs ruling, erred in law and in principle in interpreting the jury verdict as a finding by the jury there was no sex at all between Ms Hand and Mr Lawrence and that was why they decided he had not assaulted her. The only reasonable interpretation of the jury not awarding punitive damages was they did not accept there was collusion between Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence relating to Ms Hand’s claim, he said.
The normal rule, that costs go to the winning party, should apply in light of the jury’s finding Mr Lawrence has not assaulted Ms Hand.
Opposing Mr Lawrence’s appeal, Ray Boland SC said there was no error in the trial judge’s decision not to award costs to Mr Lawrence against Ms Hand.
In exercising his discretion on costs, the trial judge was entitled to take into account that Mr Lawrence did not incur any costs because Mr McGregor paid his legal fees, counsel said.
If costs were awarded to Mr Lawrence against Ms Hand, the court could take it they would be “snaffled” by Mr McGregor and exceed her award of €250,000 damages.
Ms Justice Kennedy told counsel that saying the court should look at the consequences of any order it might make was a difficult argument to make.
