Appeal court defers judgment on Conor McGregor's appeal over High Court jury finding in civil rape case
Court of Appeal
has said it will give judgment 'in due course' on
Conor McGregor
's appeal against a civil jury finding in favour of
Nikita Hand
, who sued him over alleged rape in a Dublin hotel.
Mr McGregor, who denied rape and claimed he had consensual and 'vigorous' sex with Ms Hand in the Beacon hotel on December 9th, 2018, advanced grounds of appeal.
They included that the trial judge erred in directing that the
High Court
civil jury should be asked to decide whether Mr McGregor assaulted, rather than sexually assaulted, Ms Hand.
Another ground included that the trial judge, Mr Justice Alexander Owens, erred in permitting a line of questioning concerning Mr McGregor's 'no comment' responses to investigating gardaí after providing them with a pre-prepared statement in response to Ms Hand's rape claim.
READ MORE
Lawyers for Ms Hand opposed the appeal and urged the court to allow the jury decision to stand. An order requiring Mr McGregor to pay Ms Hand's estimated €1.3 million legal costs has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
Mr McGregor had sought to introduce fresh evidence for his appeal which he said bolstered his insistence he was not responsible for bruising on the body of Ms Hand noted by a doctor who examined her on December 10th, 2018.
The evidence included affidavits from Samantha O'Reilly and Steven Cummins, who lived across the road from Ms Hand in Drimnagh in late 2018. In an affidavit sworn last January, Ms O'Reilly claimed she had witnessed, from her home, a physical altercation between Ms Hand and her then partner Stephen Redmond in their home on the night of December 9th/10th, 2018.
In an affidavit, Ms Hand described her neighbours' claims as lies and said Mr Redmond never assaulted her that night or at any time during their relationship.
After an application to admit the neighbours' evidence was dramatically withdrawn by Mr McGregor's side at the outset of the appeal on Tuesday, Ms Hand's lawyers applied on Wednesday to have the matter referred to the
Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP) for consideration of possible perjury, including possible induced perjury by Mr McGregor.
[
Court to refer withdrawn material in Conor McGregor appeal for consideration of possible perjury
Opens in new window
]
Senior counsel John Gordon said the court had power to refer the matter to the DPP and should do so because that would show the court's concern about the 'apparent abuse of its own processes'.
The fresh evidence application was not just to adduce further evidence but to undermine Ms Hand's reputation pending the hearing of the appeal, he said.
Having viewed materials in chambers, the court agreed to refer the matter to the DPP and said it would inform the parties of the materials it proposed to refer.
The court reserved judgment on a linked appeal by James Lawrence (36), Rafter's Road, Drimnagh, against Mr Justice Owens's refusal to award him costs against Ms Hand after the jury found he had not assaulted her in the hotel after Mr McGregor had left.
During the civil trial, it was confirmed that Mr McGregor, who said Mr Lawrence was his friend, was paying his legal costs for the civil case.
Senior counsel John Fitzgerald, for Mr Lawrence, argued on Wednesday that his client was entitled to his costs against Ms Hand on grounds including the normal costs rule that they go to the winning party.
Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, submitted that the trial judge had discretion to make the order he had. When counsel said an order for costs against Ms Hand would wipe out her damages award, Ms Justice Kennedy said wanting the court to take cognisance of possible consequences of its orders was a 'difficult' argument to make.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
36 minutes ago
- RTÉ News
Ashling Murphy's boyfriend Ryan Casey settles BBC defamation case
The partner of murdered school teacher Ashling Murphy has settled his High Court claim for defamation against the BBC. Ryan Casey, 27, sued the organisation following the broadcast of an episode of live political programme The View on 30 November 2023. The programme was broadcast just under two weeks after Mr Casey had delivered a victim impact statement at the sentence hearing of Jozef Puska for the murder of Ms Murphy. Ms Murphy was murdered by Puska on January 12 2022, as she went for a run beside the Grand Canal in Tullamore, Co Offaly. Puska, who is originally from Slovakia, stabbed Ms Murphy 11 times in the neck in a random attack. At his trial he claimed she had been killed by a masked man who had also attacked him. But the jury found him guilty of murder. Puska's brothers Marek and Lubomir Junior were convicted last month of withholding information while his sisters in law Jozefina Grundzova and Viera Gaziova were found guilty of burning his clothes after the murder. Puska's wife Lucia Istokova pleaded guilty to withholding information. In a statement read to the court this morning, the BBC said it stood by the journalism involved in the episode in question, which it said debated serious issues of public interest. It said however that it was happy to clarify that it did not consider Mr Casey to be a criminal or a racist or of attempting to incite hatred or someone seeking to pose as a hero of the far right through his Victim Impact Statement. The statement read by Senior Counsel Alan Keating, continued that the BBC acknowledged Mr Casey's personal tragedy. He said the statement clarified any unintentional inferences that could have been drawn from the broadcast and had enabled the BBC and Mr Casey to resolve the matter amicably. Senior Counsel, Ronan Lupton for Mr Casey, said the matter could be struck out by Mr Justice Alex Owens. It is understood Mr Casey has received substantial damages as well as a contribution towards his costs amounting to a six figure sum. In a statement afterwards, Mr Casey said the settlement marked the end of a long and difficult chapter of frustration and censorship. He said it was never about him, but was about truth, fairness and decency. Mr Casey said he took the legal action against the BBC not solely out of anger, but out of a need for accountability and dignity for Ashling, for himself, their families and for all victims, who he said deserved to have their voices heard without such harsh criticism or judgement. He said he hoped it would be a reminder to all media organisations of the high level of responsibility that came with running such public platforms. Mr Casey thanked everyone who had supported him by post, texts phone calls and on social media over the past three-and-a-half years as well as his legal team. He said he was now finally free to use his voice again to honour Ashling, and, he said, advocate for the changes desperately required in this country. He said this included the increased safety measures that were clearly needed and he said he wanted to advocate for a society that listened to its people, "free of gaslighting, blacklisting or censorship". Mr Casey continued that "we all have a lot more in common than what separates us". And he said he wanted everyone to honour Ashling by building a better and safer Ireland. He added "we all know we can do so much better".
The Irish Sun
2 hours ago
- The Irish Sun
Sheep farmer's ex-wife LOSES battle over £80MILLION ‘gift' he gave her for kids… after she divorced him & kept cash
A SHEEP farmer's ex-wife has lost a five-year legal battle to keep half of a £80million sum he gave her as part of a tax avoidance scheme. Clive Standish, 72, transferred the multi-million pound gift to his former partner Anna in 2017, with the intention of eventually placing the money in an offshore trust for their children. Advertisement 5 Clive Standish will keep the majority of an £80million gift he gave his wife Credit: Central News 5 It was initially decided by the High Court that Anna should receive half of the funds Credit: Champion News Clive, a former chief financial officer at UBS, made the decision to move the funds over to his Australian wife to exploit her non-dom status and avoid a crippling 40% inheritance-tax rate. The former banker believed he would face a bill of about £32 million if he died with the money in his name. But the pair's 15 year marriage later hit the rocks and divorce proceedings began in 2020 with the assets still in her name. It was initially decided by the High Court in 2023 that Anna, 57, should receive half of the funds in the settlement. Advertisement Read more News But last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that her share should be reduced from half to £25million. The amount was judged to fairly represent her contribution to raising the children and looking after their home. And despite Anna's recent attempts to overturn the decision, the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court yesterday. Five judges argued that the sum was not a marital asset because it had not been shared by the couple and Mr Standish had intended it for their children. Advertisement Most read in The Sun Exclusive Exclusive The ruling said: 'Tax planning schemes to save tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace. 'The problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80 million should not be retained by the wife.' Advertisement Fresh twist in Eamonn Holmes & Ruth Langsford's divorce as celeb pair battle over £3.6m home His wife never established two offshore trusts as he had expected, so Clive was judged to be the sole owner of those assets when divorce proceedings began. Lord Faulks, representing Anna, tried to argue that the money had become shared property after the initial transfer, adding that she had contributed by accepting the gift. Mr Standish moved to Australia in 1976 and married Anna in December 2005, before the pair moved to the UK five years later. The couple lived together at Moundsmere Manor, an 18-bedroom mansion near Preston Candover, Hampshire. Advertisement Clive's laywer, Tim Bishop KC, explained that in June 2004 his client was worth £57.3 million, while Anna had 'no significant pre-marital wealth'. The marital assets at the time of the split amounted to £132million, almost all of which had come from Clive's initial fortune. Mr Bishop added: "The husband made the transfers in March 2017, but the wife failed to transfer the assets into trust by the time the marriage ran into problems in 2019 and then broke down finally in 2020". Delivering the Supreme Court ruling, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens agreed with the Court of Appeal's verdict. Advertisement 5 The pair lived together at Moundsmere Manor in Hampshire Credit: Champion News Service 5 Clive moved the funds over to his Australian wife to avoid inheritance-tax Credit: Champion News Service Ltd They said: "There was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because the transfer was to save tax and it was for the benefit of the children not the wife. "The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them. Advertisement "Transfers of capital assets with the intention of saving tax do not, without some further compelling evidence, establish that the parties are treating the capital asset as shared between them. "The 2017 assets comprise the husband's pre-marital assets and earnings that the husband made in the years 2004-2007, to which the wife contributed by being the home-maker and child carer during those years. "In relation to a scheme designed to save tax, under which one spouse transfers an asset to the other spouse, the parties' dealings with the asset do not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between them. "Rather, the intention is simply to save tax." Advertisement 5 Anna's share following the Supreme Court ruling will stay at £25million Credit: Champion News
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘None of us got out unscathed': Senator speaks of experience ‘living in very violent home'
Senators applauded a colleague's bravery in the Upper House of the Oireachtas on Wednesday when she spoke about witnessing domestic abuse as a child. Sinn Féin Senator Nicole Ryan described her mother as a strong woman who was a victim of abuse, the trauma of which passed 'through the generations' to herself and her sibling. Ms Ryan lived in a very violent home from the age of four to seven. 'As a child, when you're developing through that stage, it shapes how you see the world' and 'how you grow'. Her mother escaped 'but none of us got out unscathed'. READ MORE The Cork-based Senator was speaking during a debate on the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill to change how breaches of domestic violence orders and bail conditions are treated in the criminal justice system. [ Eight domestic violence calls go unanswered by Free Legal Advice Centres every day due to lack of resources Opens in new window ] Ms Ryan introduced an amendment to the Cross Party Group's private member's Bill, that the presence of a child when an offence is being committed 'shall be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing'. 'The perpetrator never carries the shame, when they commit an act of violence … The shame is always given to the victim. And that shame gets passed on.' Her voice breaking, she said it shaped how she saw the world and her trust in people. 'For two decades, I lived in the shadow of the shame.' As a child she learned how to read people. 'I would know the kind of mood that he'd be in by the way that that his foot crossed the threshold of the front door. 'I would understand that laughing sometimes or playing too loud could be a trigger. Or the fact that if the house wasn't clean enough that would mean my mother would get abuse.' Ms Ryan became 'very fixated' on having 'everything perfect' and 'that will be with me forever'. The shame 'makes you hypervigilant and untrusting even of love. You see everything as danger', she said. 'Even if we were never hurt physically, but emotionally … we carry those scars, and that does need to be an aggravating factor' in sentencing, because 'I will still carry those scars with me for the rest of my life', she said. The Senator said she was grateful for the opportunity to share her story and 'to stand up for all the other young children that are out there that are living in these homes'.
