McGregor appeal material to be referred to DPP amid perjury concern
It came after a request by the lawyer of Nikita Hand, 35, who successfully sued McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018.
McGregor, who told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand, launched an appeal after a jury of eight women and four men found him civilly liable for assault.
That appeal was expected to contain fresh evidence following an affidavit from a former neighbour of Ms Hand, Samantha O'Reilly, who said she had witnessed a physical row between Ms Hand and her then-partner at about the same time of the incident at the Beacon hotel.
Ms Hand denies any altercation with her former partner and the court heard she characterised the claims from Ms O'Reilly and Ms O'Reilly's partner Steven Cummins as 'lies'.
On Tuesday, McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew that ground of appeal, saying it would no longer be relying on the material.
On Wednesday, Ms Hand's lawyer John Gordon SC said she had been disadvantaged by 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' in 'widely published' claims from the affidavits, adding that she did not have a chance to reply to them in court before they were withdrawn.
Mr Gordon said the application to introduce the witnesses was not just to produce further evidence, but also to 'undermine my client's reputation', including by stating she had lied.
Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, had raised concerns that the request was an attempt to get the matter on the record for the media, adding that this would be 'wholly inappropriate'.
Mr Gordon said Ms Hand was 'put through the wringer yet again' and expressed a desire to cross examine Mr Cummins and Ms O'Reilly.
He asked the Court of Appeal to use its powers to refer matters to the DPP, citing concerns around perjury.
The three judges of the court, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, said they would do so.
After a day and a half of representations, they also said they would reserve their judgment on the appeal matters to a later date, adding that decisions relating to costs that arose during deliberations would be decided at that point also.
Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euro in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about 1.3 million euro in legal costs following November's trial.
McGregor's appeal proceeded on other grounds, largely relating to the circumstances under which his 'no comment' answers to gardai were allowed to enter the trial.
Remy Farrell SC, also for McGregor, said on Tuesday that an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end.
He said this occurred under cross-examination by Mr Gordon and was based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said.
Mr Farrell said his client had made a comment about wanting to seek the best advice from his solicitors and accused Ms Hand's side of incorrectly interpreting the same comments as a suggestion that McGregor had sought to present himself as someone who was being fully co-operative with gardai.
Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation.
He said it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible.
Meanwhile, McGregor's co-defendant has also appealed against the trial judge's decision not to award him his legal costs.
During the same trial in November, the jury did not find James Lawrence had assaulted Ms Hand at the hotel.
However, trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens decided that Ms Hand would not have to pay Mr Lawrence's costs arising out of the proceedings.
His legal team is challenging whether that decision was correct and reasonable, arguing that Ms Hand should have to pay as the jury did not find he had assaulted her.
Mr Boland said the success of Mr Lawrence's appeal would present 'grubby realities' where McGregor would effectively 'snaffle' back money he had to pay in damages.
He told the court that it had been confirmed that McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence's legal costs.
He said that the legal bill for Mr Lawrence, which would be due to be paid by Ms Hand if his appeal is successful, is likely to exceed the award of damages to be paid by McGregor.
Mr Boland said this would set the jury's verdict on damages 'at nought' when McGregor was 'preparing to pay over the balance' of all costs relating to the matters.
He said that McGregor would 'snaffle' back the money he is paying for damages if the appeal of 'his avatar' meant that Ms Hand had to pay Mr Lawrence's costs instead.
He said this would not be in the interests of justice.
John Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, said Mr Owens made the decision not to award costs based on an incorrect interpretation of the jury's verdict and that his client had an entitlement to costs.
The Irish Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment in relation to the appeals of McGregor and Lawrence and will give its decisions at a later date.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
7 hours ago
- Times
US values must not trump valid concerns about social media
In December 2020, Helen McEntee, then the justice minister, announced her intention to bring forward new legislation to combat incitement to hatred and hate crime the following year. She made this promise at the launch of the findings of a public consultation that attracted more than 3,600 submissions. She stated that, after in-depth meetings with various civil society and community groups, academics and experts, her aim was to identify how Ireland's law in this area could be improved, based on a clear understanding of the experiences of those affected by hate speech and hate crime. McEntee ultimately proposed that the new law would cover both incitement to hatred and hate crime with the latter offences being aggravated versions of existing crimes. The idea was that offences against the person, criminal damage or public order offences — when they were carried out because of prejudice against a protected characteristic — would be criminalised. Close to four years after first mooting the legislation, and with a general election looming, McEntee dropped her plan, claiming the incitement to hatred element of the criminal justice bill did not have a consensus. It would be dealt with, in that classic Irish tradition, at a later time. The hate speech element had caused unease within her Fine Gael party and coalition partner Fianna Fail, and was criticised by various backbenchers, opposition parties and independents, free speech groups and even the world's richest man, Elon Musk. • Ireland's 'vague' anti-hate law threatens flood of court challenges Six weeks later, Donald Trump won the United States presidential election — and on free speech, like much else, the world turned. As Patrick O'Donoghue reveals in today's paper, the US State Department has recently warned Irish regulators against pressuring American tech companies to limit, or what it more evocatively calls chill, free speech following a meeting with the Irish media commissioner, Coimisiun na Mean, and officials from the Department of Justice. Ireland is an important battleground in the global culture war that is free speech because of the American social media giants headquartered in Dublin. All have proven hostile to any attempts to hold them liable for what is posted on their platforms, no matter how heinous or potentially libellous the context. All have also been brought to heel by the Trump administration. Their chief executives were only too happy to line up like lapdogs to have their picture taken with Trump at his inauguration, having stumped up large amounts of coin to contribute to the costs of the festivities. • Who's who in Trump's tech bro club Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Tim Cook of Apple, Sundar Pichai of Google and Elon Musk of X (and much else besides) were centre stage while TikTok's Shou Zi Chew also put in an appearance. Earlier that month, Zuckerberg announced that Meta was to get rid of fact checkers and dramatically reduce the amount of what he called 'censorship' on its platforms. Facebook kicked Trump off its platform in the aftermath of the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, which led Trump to call Facebook 'an enemy of the people'. Once the American people re-elected Trump, however, Zuckerberg was only too keen to ingratiate himself back into the president's capricious good books. Musk donated some $300 million to Trump's election campaign and, notwithstanding the pair's rather hilarious X spat last week, must be delighted at how the administration so clearly aligns with his views on hate speech, ie there is literally nothing that cannot be said on his platform. The US secretary of state, the sycophantic Marco Rubio — a man with no principle he won't change — recently announced a view to impose visa bans on foreign nationals it deems to be censoring Americans. He has rather weirdly tied this into a touchstone for the security of the country, something he also did when supporting Trump's tariffs. The delegation that came to Ireland to dissuade regulators from doing anything that might cause American tech giants even the slightest discomfort was led by one of Rubio's chief advisers, Samuel Samson, who complained that Europe had devolved into a 'hotbed of digital censorship'. He accused Europe of democratic backsliding, whatever that is, claiming that it affected American security and the free speech rights of US citizens and companies. Whatever about security concerns — and it seems there is no policy, no matter how esoteric or insignificant, that the Trump administration won't link to the country's security — Americans have always been protective of their first amendment rights to freedom of expression. Flag-burning, money in politics, pornography, school prayer, mobile phone data, protests at funerals, document leaks and anti-war protests have all gone before the US Supreme Court. While that court has been somewhat haphazard in its judgments over the years, the overriding consistency about free speech cases is that the government can limit free speech if it poses a clear and present danger. Beyond that, almost everything else is fair game. In that context, the Trump administration now wants to flex its free speech muscles globally — and Ireland is as good a place as any to start. Trump started a metaphorical war on tariffs that has caused division in the European Union as individual states try to protect their patches, including Ireland, as Simon Harris, the tanaiste, showed last week in seeking exemptions from the EU in terms of tariff retaliation. Another war over any European plans to enforce new laws on social media platforms is also brewing, with ominous threats of sanctions. When McEntee first mooted the idea of combating incitement to hatred through legislation, she framed it in the context of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. There are completely differing interpretations of how far this fundamental right goes in Europe and America. Under Trump, the US has constantly asserted that it will pursue policies that are in America's interests. Those who come to lobby on its behalf should be told that Ireland and the EU follow their own path.
The Independent
10 hours ago
- The Independent
Man accused of assaulting police at airport ‘headbutted traveller'
A man accused of assault police at Manchester Airport also head-butted a traveller, a court has heard. Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20 allegedly got 'in the face' of traveller Abdulkareem Ismaeil and head-butted him in a Starbucks at Terminal Two before police were called, Liverpool Crown Court was told on Friday. Police traced Amaaz and his brother, Muhammad Amaad, 26, who were leaving the airport after picking up their mother from a flight from Qatar. It was alleged that the brothers used a 'high level of violence' and assaulted three officers who arrived to arrest them as they paid for parking. Jurors were shown CCTV. The brothers have denied the charges against them from 23 July last year. Mr Ismaeli had been on the same flight as the defendant's mother where 'something happened' which upset her, the jury heard. He had been with his wife, two young daughters and young son in Starbucks while leaving the terminal when the defendant's mother passed by and pointed him out to her sons. The manager of the Starbucks, Cameron Carledge, overheard 'raised voices' while doing paperwork in his office, when he went to the door and saw his colleague prepared the order for Mr Ismaeil at the counter. He saw another man, wearing a blue track-suit, identified as Amaaz, 'quite close to him, shouting at him'. Mr Carledge said the shouting was in a foreign language he did not understand. 'At the time of the arguing he was very close to him, like in his face,' the witness said. 'Blue track-suit man seemed quite aggressive, obviously annoyed about something, I don't know what. Blue track-suit man was aggressively shouting. 'Because his body language, his tone of voice was quite aggressive.' Mr Carledge continued that Mr Ismaeili raised his voice in a more defensive than aggressive way. 'There was arguing, I don't know what was being said, then blue track-suit man head butted the man we see in the black,' he continued. 'He got him in the face. It did not look like it hurt Mr Ismaeil much but it was forceful enough to make him stagger back into the counter.' The Starbucks manager said that before the two men were spit up, Amaaz threw two punches but he thought they landed on Mr Ismaeil's shoulder. He then called the police. Mr Carledge said, working at the airport, he saw people 'arguing all the time' but, after witnessing the headbutt, called police. Amaaz denies one count of assault to Mr Ismaeli and three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to PC Zachary Marsden, PC Ellie Cook and PC Lydia Ward. His brother Amaad denies one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to PC Marsden.
Times
12 hours ago
- Times
Victims of serial abuser and conman united to face him in court
It was the moment Scott Fraser had dreaded — the women he had abused, lied to and stolen from united in a courtroom, facing him together. In September last year Fraser pleaded guilty at Aberdeen sheriff court to abducting Debbie McFarlane, his former partner, and defrauding her of £50,000. He was given a community sentence. McFarlane sat in the public gallery but she was not alone; beside her were Fraser's three former wives and his adult daughter. 'I had wanted my day in court,' she said. 'I wanted to face him and tell the court what he had done but when he pled guilty at the last minute I wasn't given the chance. 'But I saw a 6ft 5in man crumble and fall in a heap when he saw wife number one, number two, number three and his daughter.' Given her chance to speak, she would have laid bare harrowing details. McFarlane, 54, had been approached by Fraser on social media. He pretended to have met her in person through a business associate and bombarded her with messages. In 2018, they met in person and McFarlane was charmed by the towering and impeccably dressed figure. According to the women who came into his orbit, he was charming, witty, well-read and attentive — a catch. He would also recount a heartbreaking backstory. On their first date, Fraser wept and said his former wife had killed James, their six-month-old boy, in a drunken car accident. His late son was immortalised on his arm with a tattoo, he said. McFarlane's previous relationship of 12 years had broken down after the sudden death of her stepson, prompting her to return from Houston, Texas, to her home city of Aberdeen. A wealthy businesswoman, she was financially stable and Fraser suggested he was too. However, she loaned him £30,000 to tide him over while he concluded a 'multi-million pound deal with energy giants Shell'. When the pandemic lockdown was introduced, he moved into her flat and became increasingly abusive. During one incident, in January 2021, Fraser became furious during a meal. The court was told that he locked the front door, took a knife from the kitchen and threatened her, then seized her phone and held her prisoner in her bedroom for five hours. Later in the relationship Fraser claimed he had aggressive prostate cancer and had just months to live. She paid tens of thousands of pounds for stem cell treatment. Her closest friend, who was dying with cancer, told her she did not believe Fraser was battling the disease at all. McFarlane said: 'I thought it was just the morphine talking.' Fraser was charged with stealing £50,000 from McFarlane, who maintains the true sum is closer to £120,000. Unknown to her, Fraser had spent the final six months of their relationship seeing a woman in Cheshire, claiming he was away on business or receiving medical treatment. McFarlane reported him to the police, prompting others to come forward. Fraser's daughter, Lauren, got in touch, claiming her father was a fantasist and inveterate liar. His social media presence is almost non-existent with a sparse LinkedIn page, which he used to approach women by direct message. His digital life was almost exclusively on dating former partners have few pictures of him and only sketchy details of his past. 'I'm a beige man, I leave no footprints in the sand,' he told McFarlane. However, he has an extensive record at Companies is listed as a former director of a company called OIM Energy Group in Aberdeen, which was set up in June 2014 and dissolved in January 2017. He asked one woman to invest money in one of his enterprises, which she did — and lost it did work offshore on oil rigs for a time and overseas as an engineer but he was unable to hold down work for any significant length of time and is believed to have misrepresented himself and his skillset to employers. He also worked as an instrumental engineer for an international defence company but earnings as a serial conman proved far more lucrative. A police officer familiar with the case said: 'You go to work and do your job. This is his job, this is what he does.' Fraser had a very limited friendship group and his social life was based around dining out and drinking, although one woman said cars were his 'great passion'. He always had a pet dog. His former partner Helen O'Connor — whom he blamed for the death of his infant son — contacted McFarlane. There had been no baby, no car accident and she was, it emerged, Fraser's third wife. When McFarlane uncovered his lies she contacted him on FaceTime and said: 'The game's up.' 'He said: 'I'm a troubled man' and cut off the call. That's the last time we ever spoke,' she told The Times. O'Connor's father was the late comedian and TV presenter Tom O'Connor and she believes Fraser targeted her for her money. They were married for just months, and he had also told her the lie of a dead baby. Fraser had first married a woman in Aberdeen but the relationship broke down around 2000 and he moved to England. He quickly met and married his second wife, who had been prepared to give evidence in support of McFarlane before Fraser's guilty plea. That marriage ended in 2009. During his next relationship he was fined twice at Aberdeen sheriff court: in 2016 for an incident of abusive behaviour towards his partner and then in 2017 for an incident of violence causing fear and alarm. He pleaded guilty on both occasions. Women with whom he was involved say the relationships were never sexual and he used his 'prostate cancer' as an excuse to avoid physical intimacy. For Fraser the control of his romantic partners was psychological. O'Connor became his third wife in December 2017. She was prepared to be called as a witness in support of McFarlane, having had a similar experience with Fraser. This week, another of Fraser's former partners was ready to take the witness stand and tell a court what he had done. The woman in Cheshire, whom Fraser had been seeing behind McFarlane's back, is also a successful businesswoman. She and her business are well known in her community and she has asked to be known only as Karen. Fraser met Karen on a dating app in March 2021 and in person in June. 'He's a very intelligent guy,' she said. 'And he seemed to have led an interesting life, as I have too. 'He was extremely well dressed. He was a subtle, classy dresser — nothing too showy or flashy. 'He could converse on any level, he was well travelled. We never stopped chatting and talking.' Fraser moved to the Lake District from Aberdeen in October that year and then moved in with Karen. He told her the move was prompted by the death from sepsis of his daughter, Lauren. He was traumatised and needed a change of scene. It was only last year that Karen discovered Lauren was alive and well. Unlike in other relationships, Fraser contributed to the household expenses but his 'flashes of temper' caused alarm. The first two years of the relationship were relatively settled but in the final six months Fraser would become angry over 'trivial' incidents. 'He was angry, shouting, banging his fist on the table, and it was always in public, which was humiliating and frightening,' Karen, 60, said. His behaviour was so unpleasant that when Karen began to suspect he was having an affair she felt relieved and hoped he would leave. One night he flew into a rage after being excluded from signing a birthday card. He grabbed Karen by her dressing gown lapel, lifting her off the floor and threatening to hire someone to kill her family. When she refused to accompany him to Aberdeen, where he was due to appear at trial for stealing from McFarlane, he put his hand to her throat. 'He took the keys and stormed out and locked me in the flat. I have no idea how long he was away for because you lose all concept of time,' Karen said. 'I was terrified.' Fraser left for Aberdeen and two days later Karen read coverage of the court case. She immediately changed the locks and went to police. Terrified of his temper, she kept in touch with him while he was away, phoning and texting him and keeping up a pretence that everything was fine. Seven days after his court appearance in Aberdeen, Fraser returned to England and went straight to a meeting with his probation officer where he was arrested. In February this year he was banned from driving for 12 months and fined £700, having driven to his probation meeting in Karen's car without a licence or insurance. On Monday he pleaded guilty to the offence of intentional strangulation and is due to be sentenced later this month at Chester crown court. McFarlane and the other women are now hopeful that Fraser will be given a custodial sentence. They believe his behaviour has gone unchecked for too long. The strangulation offence took place two days before his court date in Aberdeen for the offences against McFarlane and she believes this illustrates his lack of remorse. Karen said: 'I sometimes hate myself. I am an astute businesswoman. I think, 'Why did I not see through it?' 'I ask myself all the time how he lured me in. I just think I felt sorry for him.'
