MMA fighter Conor McGregor has been ordered by the High Court not to disseminate CCTV footage shown during the civil action taken against him by Nikita Hand and to give back or destroy any copies he has.
Mr Justice Alex Owens said a jury determined that Mr McGregor raped Nikita Hand on 9 December 2018 in the Beacon Hotel in Dublin, and awarded her almost €250,000 in damages.
The judge said the issue had been conclusively determined by the jury against Mr McGregor and would remain the position unless Mr McGregor persuaded a higher court to overturn the verdict.
He said it was not open to him to make contrary claims or selectively use bits and pieces of evidence in the public arena to suit himself.
The judge said there was a real and demonstrable risk that Mr McGregor would provide the footage to an Italian business associate, Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, who has claimed the imminent release of the footage would increase sales of Mr McGregor's stout.
He said Mr McGregor’s solicitors had not provided any comfort to Ms Hand’s solicitors when they wrote to him seeking an undertaking that he would not release the footage and he had not provided any such undertaking during today’s court proceedings.
The judge said he was exercising his inherent jurisdiction to make sure a party did not commit contempt of court.
He said the footage was provided by An Garda Síochana as part of the discovery process for the civil action and was only for use to prepare for the action and while the action was under way.
The parties were bound to respect this rule, he said.
As the matter was now over, the judge said it was no longer necessary for Mr McGregor to hold any copies of the CCTV or any other materials.
He had a considerable following on social media and this type of material was capable of being misused in quite a serious way.
The judge said public opinion on social media could be fired up by the footage in advance of any second hearing of the case if Mr McGregor’s appeal was successful.
The footage showed Mr McGregor, Ms Hand and their friends, James Lawrence and Danielle Kealy in the car park and lift of the Beacon Hotel, before and after Mr McGregor assaulted Ms Hand.
Mr McGregor's side had argued that she did not look like someone who had been seriously assaulted.
Ms Hand said she was clearly very drunk in the footage and became upset when it was shown.
It was played to the court on multiple occasions during the trial and viewed by the jury during their deliberations.
Judge Owens said it was "necessary to nip all this in the bud".
He ordered Mr McGregor to return all material that remains in his personal possession and arrange for the permanent deletion of footage on his personal devices.
He also ordered him to swear an affidavit outlining the steps he had taken to do this.
If he needed to see it again in advance of any appeal, the judge said he could access it under supervision in his solicitors’ office.
The judge also ordered Mr McGregor to contact any person to whom he has released the footage and instruct them to return it to him.
He said releasing the footage would also be in breach of data protection legislation and a breach of Ms Hand’s right to privacy.
He had been asked by Mr McGregor’s lawyers to adjourn his consideration of this matter to allow him time to swear an affidavit.
But the judge said this was not good enough, and Mr McGregor had had plenty of time to swear a document and provide comfort to Ms Hand’s lawyers.
Mr Justice Owens has also ordered Mr McGregor to pay most of the costs of the proceedings, estimated at €1.3m.
He granted a stay on the award and the costs on condition that Mr McGregor pay out €100,000 of the award and pay €200,000 in costs immediately.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
The judge cast doubt on the prospects of a successful appeal by Mr McGregor against the verdict.
Earlier, Senior Counsel Remy Farrell said he would be appealing on two grounds.
The first relates to legal argument during the trial about Mr McGregor replying no comment more than 100 times to questions in garda interviews.
Mr Farrell said there was also an issue about the "interpretation of the jury’s verdict" as the issue paper they had to complete did not ask them if Mr McGregor had "sexually" assaulted Ms Hand.
However, Mr Justice Owens said he gave his direction in the legal argument based on a Supreme Court ruling and he doubted there was very much room to appeal.
He also said the jury had been directed in detail on law and facts and knew exactly what they were being required to decide.
The judge had decided not to initiate action against Mr McGregor for contempt of court over comments made by him on social media after the verdict.
Earlier, he said comments by Mr McGregor that Ms Hand was a liar and had perjured herself were "not on".
However, he said it was a matter for her and her legal advisers.
He said it was not acceptable to describe the court as a "kangaroo court".
But he said if he pursued these comments, it would be a distraction and would keep Mr McGregor in the news cycle.
The matter will be back in court next month.
