Nikita Hand has welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to reject mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor’s bid for a further appeal against a jury finding that he assaulted her in a Dublin hotel.
She claimed he raped her in the Beacon Hotel, Sandyford, Dublin, on December 9th, 2018. The jury awarded Ms Hand almost €250,000 damages.
In a statement welcoming the Supreme Court’s decision, Ms Hand said the “public and private roads that I and my loved ones have travelled have been long and painful”.
“Today marks not a victory for me but for all of those who have been treated as I have. You are never alone on your journey, if you choose not to be. Help and support is there,” she said in a statement via her solicitors, Coleman Legal.
READ MORE
The Court of Appeal last July dismissed Mr McGregor’s appeal against the High Court civil jury finding that he assaulted Ms Hand in Dublin’s Beacon Hotel on December 9th, 2018. The court upheld the jury’s award of almost €250,000 in damages to Ms Hand and directed she was entitled to her legal costs against Mr McGregor.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a related appeal by James Lawrence, of Rafter’s Road, Drimnagh, against a decision by the High Court’s Mr Justice Alexander Owens, refusing to grant him legal costs against Ms Hand after the jury rejected her claim Mr Lawrence assaulted her after Mr McGregor left the hotel.
Since this judgment, Mr McGregor instructed new lawyers, Mulholland Law, to represent him in his application to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal. Mulholland Law is representing Mr Lawrence, whose similar appeal attempt was rejected by the Supreme Court panel.
Mr McGregor’s application for an appeal focused on his right to silence. Mr McGregor had replied “no comment” when questioned by gardaí about allegations by Ms Hand, and he claimed the High Court’s Mr Justice Owens was wrong to allow Ms Hand’s counsel to cross-examine him about these “no comment” answers. He claimed the judge should have told the jury to disregard these answers entirely.
In its determination, the three-judge Supreme Court panel noted the Court of Appeal had ruled that Mr Justice Owens was incorrect to allow the cross-examination of Mr McGregor on the “no comment” responses. However, the Court of Appeal was satisfied Mr McGregor’s legal team had not established a real risk of an unfair trial, as, the court found, Mr Justice Owens had been clear this evidence could not be seen by the jury as suggestive or supportive of a claim of rape.
The Supreme Court panel was not satisfied any matter of “general public importance” arose in the appeal application. The judges said the Court of Appeal applied well-established principles as to whether the jury should have been discharged in light of an erroneous ruling by the High Court on the cross-examination.
The judges were satisfied Mr McGregor has had a “fair hearing”, notwithstanding the admission of the “no comment” evidence. He has also benefitted from his right to appeal, the judges said, adding that they were not satisfied that a further appeal should be allowed on the “basis of the interests of justice”.
The judges also refused Mr Lawrence’s appeal bid, saying he did not advance “any persuasive reasons” for why the lower court’s decision about the legal costs of his defence was “erroneous, let alone unjust”.
