Former MMA fighter Conor McGregor has withdrawn his application to introduce new evidence in his appeal against the finding of a High Court jury in a civil trial that he raped Nikita Hand.
In an unexpected development just before the hearing was due to start, Mr McGregor's lawyers told the Court of Appeal that they would be withdrawing the new claims alleging that Ms Hand was assaulted by her then boyfriend on the same day that she met Mr McGregor.
Her lawyers told the court that she was owed an apology.
Ms Hand sued Mr McGregor alleging she was raped in a hotel in Dublin in December 2018.
The jury found in her favour and awarded her almost €250,000 in damages.
Mr McGregor is challenging the verdict and wanted to bring in the "fresh evidence" as part of his appeal.
Samantha O’Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins lived opposite Ms Hand and her then-boyfriend Stephen Redmond in Drimnagh in 2018.
After Ms Hand won her case, Ms O’Reilly and Mr Cummins swore affidavits for Mr McGregor alleging they had seen and heard a row between Ms Hand and Mr Redmond on the night of 9 December 2018 - after Ms Hand had been out with Mr McGregor.
In the affidavits, Ms O’Reilly said that she was watching from her bedroom across the road and saw Mr Redmond push Ms Hand as well as move his arms and hips as if he was punching and kicking her, although she said that she did not see any blows land on Ms Hand.
Mr Cummins said he was woken by screams and shouts coming from Ms Hand’s house but told Ms O’Reilly that it was none of their business. He said he did not even look over to see what was happening.
They were expected in court to be cross-examined as part of this appeal. Ms Hand was also due to be questioned about their evidence.
But before the case started, Mr McGregor’s barrister, Mark Mulholland KC, told the court that he wanted to withdraw the evidence.
He said this was partly on the basis that other supporting evidence they wanted to introduce would not be admissible.
Mr Mulholland said the lawyers had looked at the case holistically and were of the view that there was no corroboration of Ms O’Reilly’s evidence and it was not a sustainable ground.
Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said she did not understand the reason for the withdrawal. Fellow judge Mr Brian O’Moore said he was "bemused", adding that that was a "kind way" to describe his position on the action that was being taken. However, the court allowed the application to be withdrawn.
Lawyers for Ms Hand said that she had been put "through the wringer yet again". Senior Counsel John Gordon said she had answered the so-called fresh evidence by saying it was all lies and, he said, that had now been conceded.
Mr Gordon said that he should be allowed to cross-examine Ms O’Reilly and Mr Cummins as well as Mr McGregor’s solicitor, Michael Staines. He said the matter should be referred for perjury to the Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr McGregor should be referred for subornation of perjury - which means inducing people to commit perjury.
Mr Gordon said that an affidavit had been sworn calling Ms Hand and her former partner a liar. He said his client was owed an apology for what was done to her in the last few months in the media and in the affidavits before the court. He said "an apology would be a start".
Mr Mulholland said this would be done through Mr McGregor’s solicitor, in due course, if appropriate.
The former MMA fighter was not in court although one of his cars was seen near his solicitor’s office in the vicinity of the Four Courts. Neither Ms O’Reilly nor Mr Cummins were in court either, although they were also seen near the same solicitor’s office.
Ms Hand was accompanied by her partner and her mother. A number of people also came to court to support Ms Hand, including Natasha O’Brien, who was assaulted by soldier Cathal Crotty and who was the subject of a recent documentary, as well as survivors of sexual violence, including Charlene Masterson and Hazel Behan.
The case continued based on two main grounds of appeal.
Senior Counsel Remy Farrell raised the issue of Mr McGregor’s answers to gardaí when he was interviewed about raping Ms Hand. The trial heard that he said no comment around 100 times.
Mr Farrell said this was manifestly prejudicial evidence that should not have been introduced and the judge’s ruling that it was admissible was wrong.
Mr McGregor had a right to silence in garda interviews and a right not to incriminate himself, counsel said.
He said that Ms Hand’s lawyers should not have been able to cross-examine on that and try to portray that he was making the case that he had told gardaí everything when he had actually given no comment answers.
Mr Farrell also raised the issue of the question asked of the jury on the issue paper. The jurors were asked if Conor McGregor had assaulted Nikita Hand. He said the parties in the case had agreed that the issue paper should have specified "sexual assault" rather than assault.
Mr Farrell suggested there was a possibility that there may have been some confusion amongst some members of the jury that a finding that Mr McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand might have been sufficient.
Her lawyers that if the issue of the garda interviews had been such a serious one for Mr McGregor, an application should have been made to discharge the jury.
Senior Counsel Ray Boland said all the interviews showed was that Mr McGregor had put himself forward as someone who wanted to cooperate fully with gardaí, but in fact was only "middling cooperative". He said they were not talking about a criminal trial dealing with his right not to incriminate himself.
Mr Boland said the challenge to the issue paper was "nonsense". He said there was no ambiguity whatsoever about what the jury was dealing with. Mr Boland said it could not have been clearer in the judge’s charge that the jurors were dealing with assault by rape. He added that there was significant physical assault as well involving strangulation on three occasions.
The appeal will conclude tomorrow when lawyers for Mr McGregor’s friend, James Lawrence, will make submissions in their appeal relating to the costs of the case.
Mr Lawrence is appealing the High Court’s decision that he was not entitled to his costs against Ms Hand even though the jury had found that he did not rape her.
Mr Lawrence claimed he had consensual sex with Nikita Hand on the same night, after Mr McGregor had left the hotel.
Mr Justice Owens - in the High Court - found that Mr Lawrence and Mr McGregor were acting "in lockstep" and it would be inappropriate to award him costs. He said the jury had concluded that Mr Lawrence did not have sex with Ms Hand and that the two friends had concocted a story between themselves.
The Court of Appeal will hear submission on that issue tomorrow morning. It is likely to reserve its decision on the appeal after that.
