Conor McGregor has lost his appeal against a High Court jury's finding that he raped Nikita Hand.
The jury at the civil trial found that he raped Ms Hand in a hotel room in December 2018 and awarded her just under €250,000 in damages.
The Court of Appeal rejected Mr McGregor’s appeal in its entirety.
It also rejected an appeal by his friend, James Lawrence, against the High Court’s decision to refuse him his costs.
The court also awarded Ms Hand her costs at the highest possible level in relation to the applications made to introduce fresh evidence into Mr McGregor’s appeal, which were later abandoned in what the Court of Appeal said were "somewhat mysterious" circumstances.
It said it did this as Ms Hand had been completely vindicated in relation to the "new evidence" which she had described as lies.
The court said Mr McGregor’s conduct in publicly calling into question the correctness of the jury’s verdict and the testimony of Ms Hand deserved to be marked by a palpable sign of the court’s displeasure and disapproval.
The court has already referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
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
Mr McGregor had intended to introduce evidence from a couple who said they were Ms Hand's former neighbours in Drimnagh.
Samantha O’Reilly and Steven Cummins claimed there had been a row between Ms Hand and her then-boyfriend following her return home after being out with Mr McGregor.
Ms O’Reilly claimed she had seen Ms Hand’s then-boyfriend moving his body in a way that suggested he was assaulting her.
Ms Hand had described this as lies.
Her lawyers had suggested the matter should be referred to the DPP to investigate perjury and Mr McGregor should be referred for subornation of perjury - which means inducing people to commit perjury.
Giving the court’s ruling, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said the abandonment by Mr McGregor of this application could only be seen by the court, as an acknowledgment that Ms Hand was correct.
He said her lawyers had not been exaggerating when they said this "new evidence" had put Ms Hand through the wringer.
It said no plausible reason had been advanced by Mr McGregor as to why these extremely important and contentious parts of his appeal had been cast aside.
The judge said Ms Hand had prevailed in one of the most hard fought trials of recent years.
The jury believed her but their belief that she had been raped had been subject to a root and branch attack in this appeal by the deploying of the "new evidence".
He said it was difficult to see why Ms Hand should have any liability for costs in respect to this aspect of the appeal.
She was awarded her costs in this matter on a "legal practitioner and own client basis" - the highest possible basis on which a court can award costs.
The court dismissed Mr McGregor’s remaining grounds of appeal.
Mr McGregor had claimed that members of the jury may have been confused about their verdict because the issue paper they had to fill in did not specify a "sexual" assault against Ms Hand.
Mr Justice O’Moore said it was simply unreal to suggest that any member of the jury became confused about the meaning of the question.
He said the judge had informed the jury that the central allegation made by Ms Hand was that Mr McGregor raped her and the issue was framed in a "brutally clear" way by the judge for the jury.
He said the award of damages the jury made was "not generous" but given the way the judge charged them and the repeated references to the assault being nothing other than the alleged rape of Ms Hand, no member of the jury could have been in any doubt about what they were being asked.
McGregor made 100 'no comment' answers to gardaí
Mr McGregor’s lawyers also argued that the jury should not have been allowed to hear about Mr McGregor’s "no comment" answers to gardaí when he was asked about raping Ms Hand.
The trial heard he made around 100 "no comment" answers.
The appeal court found the trial judge’s ruling admitting this evidence was incorrect and was not justifiable.
But it found that the judge repeatedly warned the jury that they should not consider his no comment answers to be support Ms Hand’s claim of rape against Mr McGregor.
He said Mr McGregor had not demonstrated that there had been a real risk of an unfair trial.
The appeal court also ruled that the judge had warned the jury about inconsistencies in Ms Hand’s evidence and had told them to look very carefully at the CCTV footage shown during the trial.
It dismissed Mr McGregor’s appeal in its entirety.
Court ruled that Lawrence should not be awarded costs
Separately the court ruled that Mr McGregor’s friend, James Lawrence, should not be awarded his costs.
He had argued that he was entitled to his costs because the jury had found that he did not rape Nikita Hand.
The High Court judge ruled that it was perfectly obvious from the jury's verdict that they rejected Mr Lawrence’s account of events.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. It found that the jury’s decision could have meant they believed Ms Hand never had sex with Mr Lawrence or that she had consensual sex with him.
However, it found that Mr Lawrence’s evidence that he saw consensual sex between Ms Hand and Conor McGregor must have been rejected by the jury.
Mr Justice O’Moore said there was a stark difference between the rape described by Ms Hand and the consensual sex described by Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence.
He said aspects of Mr Lawrence’s evidence were fundamentally at odds with the jury’s verdict in relation to Mr McGregor and could only be regarded as "untruthful" and he said giving such evidence was a very serious matter.
The judge said this alone would be enough to deprive Mr Lawrence of his costs.
McGregor paying Lawrence's legal costs was significant factor
But he said another significant factor was the fact that Mr McGregor had paid Mr Lawrence’s legal costs.
The judge said the arrangement between the two men was "shrouded in mystery" and there was no reason to believe Mr Lawrence had any obligation to repay Mr McGregor.
If Mr Lawrence was awarded costs and chose not to repay Mr McGregor he would have received a bounty of several hundred thousands of euro for his troubles.
The judge said this was not a result that the proper exercise of a court’s jurisdiction was designed to achieve.
He said that if Mr Lawrence did repay Mr McGregor the costs, then Ms Hand would be making a payment to someone who gave inaccurate evidence against her and ultimately to the man who raped her.
The judge also noted that the two men’s separate legal representation in the trial brought significant advantages to Mr McGregor by making Ms Hand subject to two sets of cross examination.
He said it appeared that Mr Lawrence did not have the resources to engage a full legal team, let alone the calibre of lawyers who eventually represented him.
The funding of his costs may have been "money well spent", by Mr McGregor, the judge said.
But it was a circumstance which led to the conclusion that Mr Lawrence should not get his costs against Ms Hand.
He said the court had come to the same conclusion as the High Court judge but for different reasons.
Speaking outside court, Ms Hand said the appeal had "retraumatised" her "over and over again".
"Being forced to relive it - what happened - has had a huge impact on me," she said.
Ms Hand added that it was a "long and painful journey" and she was "deeply grateful to everyone who believed in" her.
"To every survivor out there, I know how hard it is, but please don't be silenced," she said.
"You deserve to be heard, you also deserve justice."
"Today, I can finally move on and try to heal," she said.
