Nikita Hand to sue her two former neighbours and Conor McGregor over withdrawn claims
The mother of one is suing the former UFC champion as well as Samantha O'Reilly and Steven Cummins for damages, claiming they had been involved in 'malicious abuse' of the processes of the Court of Appeal.
The High Court action was filed yesterday, shortly after the Court of Appeal dismissed McGregor's challenge to the outcome of a civil rape case Ms Hand won against him last year.
A jury found in favour of Ms Hand, a hair colourist from Drimnagh in Dublin, last November and awarded her close to €250,000 in damages after she gave evidence that she was raped by McGregor in a hotel in 2018.
News in 90 Seconds, Friday August 1
McGregor quickly appealed and had planned to call Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins as witnesses offering an alternate theory as to how Ms Hand suffered extensive bruising. The couple are former neighbours of Ms Hand.
Ms O'Reilly swore an affidavit suggesting Ms Hand was punched and kicked by her then partner just hours after she says she was raped by McGregor.
The claim was dismissed as 'lies' by Ms Hand, whose lawyers had planned to cross-examine the couple.
But when McGregor's appeal opened last month, his legal team dramatically dropped an application to introduce their evidence, claiming it would have difficulty persuading the three-judge court to admit it.
Nikita Hand speaks after the hearing. Photo: Collins
The judges decided to refer papers in the case to the DPP following an application from Ms Hand's counsel John Gordon SC, who alleged there had been perjury by Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins, as well as subornation of perjury by McGregor.
None of the three have commented on the allegations made by the barrister.
Now, on top of a potential criminal investigation, the three are set to face a civil action from Ms Hand. A plenary summons was filed yesterday by her solicitors Coleman Legal LLP.
It is understood a statement of claim, providing further details about the lawsuit, will be filed in due course.
In its ruling dismissing McGregor's appeal, the Court of Appeal said the application to introduce the evidence of Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins had been dropped in 'somewhat mysterious' circumstances and that no plausible reason had been given for this turn of events.
Mr Justice Brian O'Moore said the abandonment of the application could be seen by the court only as an acknowledgment that Ms Hand was correct. Read more
He also said Ms Hand's counsel had not been exaggerating when he said this 'new evidence' had put Ms Hand 'through the wringer'
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal dismissed McGregor's legal challenge in its entirety after dismissing five grounds put forward.
McGregor's grounds of appeal included 'no comment' responses given by him during his garda interviews being put to the jury, and the jury being asked to deliberate on an 'assault' rather than 'sexual assault'. Other arguments advanced were alleged failures by the trial judge during his charge to the jury, and the ability of McGregor's counsel to carry out an effective cross-examination.
On the argument around the issue paper, the judges said it was 'simply unreal' to suggest that any juror could have been confused by the wording when the issue was 'framed in a clear way' by the trial judge when he spoke of intentional and non-consensual contact. This ground of appeal was rejected.
The court also said it was satisfied that the potential prejudice to McGregor in relation to his 'no comment' answers being put to the jury was not established.
'The real risk of an unfair trial has not been demonstrated,' Mr Justice O'Moore said in relation to this ground of appeal as he rejected it.
James Lawrence. Photo: Collins
McGregor's friend James Lawrence, who was also sued by Ms Hand but was found by a jury not to have raped her, also appealed against a High Court decision not to award him costs. This was also rejected by the Court of the Appeal, which cited evidence in the trial that McGregor was paying his friend's costs.
The three judges said that if Mr Lawrence was awarded costs and repaid his friend, then Ms Hand would ultimately be making payments 'to the man who raped her', referring to McGregor. If he did not, he would be awarded a 'bounty' for his troubles.
Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded €248,603.60 in damages by the High Court last year and McGregor was also ordered to pay about €1.3m in legal costs following November's trial.
Speaking outside the High Court yesterday, Ms Hand thanked her legal team, the Rape Crisis Centre and three judges of the appeal court.
'I'm deeply grateful for everyone who supported me, believed in me and stood by my side during this long and painful journey,' she said.
'This appeal has retraumatised me over and over again.
'Being forced to relive it, what has happened has had a huge impact on me.
'For every survivor out there, I know how hard it is, but please don't be silent, you deserve to be heard, you also deserve justice.
'Today I can finally move on and try to heal.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Legal proceedings in McGregor case not yet at an end
This week, the former MMA fighter Conor McGregor 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. On Thursday, the Court of Appeal rejected Mr McGregor's appeal against the finding in its entirety. It also rejected an appeal by his friend, James Lawrence, against the High Court's decision to refuse him his costs. However, the legal proceedings are not at an end. Here, our Legal Affairs Correspondent Órla O'Donnell reflects on the case and looks at what could come next. On Thursday, Nikita Hand entered court number one at the Court of Appeal a few minutes before the hearing was due to start. With her, as always, was the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre's accompaniment manager, along with solicitors, Susan Hannon and David Coleman as well as some good friends. Conor McGregor was not there. But for both sides in this case, the stakes were unimaginably high. Mr McGregor has raged against the jury's verdict to his millions of social media followers since the case ended in November 2024. His US-based public relations executives began sending emails to media organisations within minutes of the verdict, claiming he had only been found "liable for assault" by the High Court jury. The PR executives claimed RTÉ News and others, were wrong to say the jury's verdict meant the jurors found he had raped Nikita Hand. They continued to send such emails sporadically in the following months. Their claim has now been firmly refuted by the Court of Appeal. Mr McGregor repeatedly accused Ms Hand of lying and laid emphasis on the fact that he had not faced any criminal charge in relation to the incident in the Beacon Hotel in December 2018. A win in his appeal would allow him to bolster his narrative that he was an innocent man facing trumped up allegations and restore his reputation. Ms Hand on the other hand, had been "put through the wringer" - a statement by her lawyers, endorsed by the Court of Appeal. She had prevailed in "one of the most hard fought trials of recent years". But her reputation had continued to be attacked by Mr McGregor, not only in his social media posts but in his tactics in this appeal. If Mr McGregor won, it would mean Nikita Hand would have to go through a high-profile civil trial all over again. And there was a further risk for her: If Mr McGregor's friend, James Lawrence, won his separate appeal over the refusal to award him his legal costs, then her award of just under €250,000 in damages could be wiped out and she could end up financially ruined. Remarkably, given what was at stake, Ms Hand remained composed as the proceedings began. Sitting bolt upright between her solicitors and her support worker from the Rape Crisis Centre, she gave a quick acknowledgement to the journalists on the opposite side of the court room. Media representatives outnumbered the lawyers in the appeal court with interest in the case from news outlets all over Ireland and further afield. The three judges emerged, presided over by experienced former criminal barrister, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy. The court's decision was given by Mr Justice Brian O'Moore. He said he would not read it all out, but it still took more than an hour to go through the issues. For Ms Hand, it was a rollercoaster. At times, the outcome looked bleak. It was only when the court made its ruling on the final issue of James Lawrence's costs, that the full extent of her vindication became clear. 'Rather tawdry episode' Mr Justice O'Moore said this was a case where the jury had to decide between Mr McGregor's description of a "rather tawdry episode" and Ms Hand's claim that a criminal offence had been committed against her. However, the first part of the court's judgment dealt not with what happened after "four people made their way to a penthouse suite in the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford" in December 2018, but with the "dramatic events" in the Court of Appeal 30 days previously. Mr Justice O'Moore dealt extensively with Mr McGregor's application to introduce "new evidence" which had "come to light" since the trial concluded. This new evidence referred to the sworn statements of Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins who at one stage had lived opposite Nikita Hand in Drimnagh. They swore affidavits about what they had seen and heard after Ms Hand returned from the Beacon Hotel on 9 December 2018. Ms O'Reilly claimed she could see into Nikita's bedroom from her bedroom and could see Nikita's boyfriend at the time, moving in a way that suggested he was assaulting her. Mr Cummins said he heard a commotion but told Ms O'Reilly it was none of their business and didn't look himself. Mr McGregor claimed this was a plausible explanation for severe bruising on Ms Hand's body. Ms Hand described their statements as lies and said she didn't wish to speculate about why they were lying. Just as the appeal was about to get underway, Mr McGregor's lawyers told the court they would be withdrawing their application to introduce this evidence. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal made it clear that they were not happy with the explanations they had been given for this decision. Mr Justice O'Moore said the affidavits were "very comprehensive and clear" and had been sworn in January this year. Neither Ms O'Reilly nor Mr Cummins said they had any difficulty remembering the incident or expressed any doubt about their evidence. And he said they would have been stress tested by Mr McGregor's lawyers, long before the eve of the appeal hearing. The judge said one explanation received by the court for the withdrawal of this evidence, related to the fact that Mr McGregor's lawyers had sought an additional expert opinion from a forensic pathologist, Professor Jack Crane, dealing with when Ms Hand's bruising could have been inflicted. Seeking to introduce new expert evidence to back up an application to introduce other new evidence was admitted by Mr McGregor's lawyers to be a "legal novelty". The first position taken by Mr McGregor's lawyers was that they had further reflected on the legal situation following written submissions on the issue from Ms Hand's lawyers, and had decided to withdraw the application. The Court of Appeal said this was "somewhat puzzling" as there was nothing new in the submissions. Mr McGregor's lawyers also suggested they were taking this step due to a lack of corroboration of Ms O'Reilly's evidence. But the court said it had never previously been suggested that the neighbours' evidence was dependent on Prof Crane's evidence being admitted. Mr Justice O'Moore said Ms O'Reilly's evidence was "crisp, clear and coherent" and the only question was whether it was true. He described this explanation as an "unsustainable position". 'Privileged matters' Mr McGregor's lawyers then claimed there were other reasons for the withdrawal of the evidence - "privileged matters" they did not intend to go into. Mr Justice O'Moore remarked that "some other factor, upon which this court does not wish to speculate, led to the abrupt decision to scuttle one of the more significant grounds of appeal". The court was deeply unimpressed with what happened. The judge said the existence of the new witnesses had "attracted no little attention" since it was first revealed earlier this year. He said the entire import of Ms O'Reilly's evidence was that Nikita Hand's testimony was incomplete and misleading. And he said Instagram messages sent by Ms O'Reilly to Mr McGregor's sister clearly accused Ms Hand of lies. The court ruled that Ms Hand had been completely vindicated in the position she took. Judge O'Moore said she robustly took the stance that Ms O'Reilly's evidence was wrong and the abandonment of the applications with "no plausible reason" could only be seen as an acknowledgement that she was correct. He said by deploying the "new evidence", the McGregor side had subjected the jury's belief that Nikita Hand had been raped to "a root and branch attack". He also said that Mr McGregor's conduct in publicly introducing evidence which fundamentally called into question the correctness of the jury's verdict and Ms Hand's testimony, only to abandon it when it was about to be tested, deserved to be marked "by a palpable sign of the court's displeasure and disapproval". He awarded Ms Hand the costs of the proceedings relating to this issue on a "legal practitioner and own client basis" against Mr McGregor. Awarding costs in this way, is significant and is not done regularly. Usually if someone is awarded their costs in legal proceedings they get them on a "party and party" basis. Surprisingly, it doesn't mean they get back all the costs they have actually accrued during the case. During the costs hearing in the High Court, Ms Hand's Senior Counsel, John Gordon suggested that someone who is successful in a court case and gets their costs on the ordinary basis gets back only about 80% of what they actually spent. Other legal sources say the true figure is actually around 60-70% of what a person spends. However awarding costs at the highest level, means someone will get back almost everything they have spent, including all the costs they have accrued with their own solicitor. The court went on to comprehensively dismiss the first of Mr McGregor's remaining grounds of appeal – the question the jury had to answer. They were asked: "Did Conor McGregor assault Nikita Ní Láimhín (Hand), yes or no?" Mr McGregor's lawyers had argued that some members of the jury may have been confused about what exactly they were being asked and may have decided he was liable for an ordinary assault instead of rape. They also submitted that the relatively low award of damages was not consistent with a finding of rape. Mr Justice O'Moore ruled the trial judge could not have been clearer in explaining that what was meant by the question was rape. He said it was "simply unreal" to suggest the jury were confused, faced with the issue framed in such a "brutally clear way", even though the damages awarded were "not generous". A more substantive ground of appeal was Mr McGregor's answers to gardaí when he was interviewed by them in connection with their investigation into Ms Hand's allegations. The trial judge allowed Mr McGregor to be cross examined about the fact that he gave a series of "no comment" answers to gardaí. The Court of Appeal found this ruling was incorrect. And it rejected a further submission that this questioning was justifiable to allow the jury to understand the background to issues in the case. But it ruled that the warnings given to the jury about this matter were sufficient to rule out the risk of an unfair trial. The court also ruled against Mr McGregor on all the remaining issues, dismissing the appeal "in its entirety". However, the issue of James Lawrence's costs remained. He argued he should have been awarded his costs as the jury had found he did not rape Ms Hand as she alleged. Ms Hand's lawyers had suggested to the court that if he were to get his costs, her award of damages would be more than wiped out. But the Court of Appeal had signalled during the hearing that this was not something they could consider. In the court's ruling, Mr Justice O'Moore said he was unimpressed by this argument. He pointed out that alleging sexual assault against Mr Lawrence was a terribly serious thing to do. Judge O'Moore also said he did not agree with the rationale of the trial judge for refusing Mr Lawrence his costs. Mr Justice Owens ruled that the jury's verdict meant they didn't believe Mr Lawrence's evidence about his own interactions with Ms Hand. The Court of Appeal said this analysis was flawed. But it found the verdict could only have meant the jury didn't believe Mr Lawrence's evidence about what happened between Ms Hand and his friend, Conor McGregor. Mr Justice O'Moore analysed Mr Lawrence's conduct, and what he said were the unusual circumstances of this case. The judge said it was "unusual" that Mr Lawrence had pleaded that he had consensual sex with Ms Hand, given that she had said she had no recollection of being sexually assaulted by him. If he had not made this plea, it would have been a possibility that the case against Mr Lawrence would have been dismissed at the end of the evidence. Plea made 'tactical' sense - judge The judge said the plea made "tactical" sense by presenting an "ostensibly coherent joint narrative" between Mr Lawrence and Mr McGregor. He also analysed the evidence given by James Lawrence on the one issue about which he said, the jury's view was not in doubt. The judge said the jury's verdict meant they believed Mr McGregor raped Nikita Hand, whereas Mr Lawrence gave evidence that the sex between Ms Hand and Mr McGregor was consensual. Judge O'Moore said Ms Hand's account must have been believed by the jury and Mr Lawrence's account must have been rejected. Therefore he said Mr Lawrence's evidence on this issue could only be regarded as untruthful. The court ruled that the giving of such evidence was a very serious matter, and was enough on its own to deprive Mr Lawrence of his costs. But it found another significant factor was the evidence of Mr McGregor that he had paid those costs for Mr Lawrence. Mr McGregor appeared to deny on social media that he ever admitted paying his friend's costs but the transcript shows that when he was asked in the witness box if he paid the fees he swore Mr Lawrence was his friend and "wouldn't have the fees for it so I believe I may have, yeah…." Mr Justice O'Moore said part of the reason for awarding costs is to make right the damage to someone who has been wrongly sued. But he said this was pointless if someone else had paid their costs for them. Arrangements between McGregor and Lawrence were 'shrouded in mystery' - judge He said the arrangements between the two men were "shrouded in mystery". But he said if Mr Lawrence didn't repay Mr McGregor he would have received a bounty of several hundred thousand euro and it would not be appropriate to enrich him by providing him with money for costs that he had never had to pay. If Mr Lawrence did repay Mr McGregor then it would mean Ms Hand would have to make a payment to a man who gave inaccurate evidence about her, and ultimately to the man who raped her. This he said should weigh heavily with the court. The judge also pointed out that having two sets of lawyers to cross examine Ms Hand, brought significant advantages to Mr McGregor. He dismissed Mr Lawrence's appeal, saying the appeal court had come to the same decision as the High Court judge, albeit for different reasons. It was at this point that Nikita Hand finally relaxed. She hugged her friends and lawyers and wiped away tears as the reality of the court's decision hit home. Outside court, holding a piece of paper in trembling hands she gave a very brief statement to the media explaining how the appeal had retraumatised her, before expressing the hope she could now finally heal. The legal proceedings are not at an end, however. Within minutes of the court's verdict, Ms Hand's lawyers lodged papers beginning an action against Ms O'Reilly, Mr Cummins and Mr McGregor for "malicious abuse of the process of the court". That case will take many months to come to court. On social media, in a flurry of posts, Mr McGregor welcomed the fact that "this is still ongoing", saying he believed the witnesses and criticising his own lawyers for not calling their evidence. He reposted a post from the AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk's X, suggesting he was "innocent" from its "analysis of the evidence", notably "excluding court rulings". He appeared to be posting from a yacht, while on holidays with his partner Dee Devlin and their children. As well as criticising Ms Hand, his lawyers and the court's decision, he published further posts suggesting he should be the next president of Ireland, describing Ms Devlin as Ireland's "first lady". Mr McGregor can attempt to challenge the appeal court's decision but he will have to get permission from the Supreme Court. That court allows appeals in the interests of justice or where there is a point of law of general public importance. The consequences of his withdrawal of the "new evidence" have also still to play out. The appeal court has referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions who may ask gardaí to investigate allegations of perjury.
Sunday World
10 hours ago
- Sunday World
Mum blasts cop claims over her son's ‘firearm' incident
The woman said he was having a major mental health issue and has since been sectioned. The mother of a man arrested with a knife after a late night stand-off in east Belfast last week says she's 'extremely disappointed' at how the PSNI portrayed the incident. She says her 35-year-old son, who was arrested, was having a major mental health issue and has since been sectioned – but none of this was reflected in statements put out by the force after the event. She says instead it was made to look like her son had 'gone on some kind of rampage', starting fires and threatening members of the emergency services. Last Sunday the PSNI put out a statement to say one of their officers had been scalded with a 'liquid substance' in what they described as a 'firearms-related incident' in the Coates Row area of the city. Emergency services were called. The man was arrested, they said, 'on suspicion of grievous bodily harm with intent, arson to endanger life, and other related offences'. And they added: 'Our officers responded swiftly to this report to protect both the public and our emergency service partners. 'Threatening and violent behaviour towards emergency workers is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.' But the man's family met with the Sunday World to say they feel the incident had been misrepresented because at no stage did he threaten anyone with a knife. 'I just want to say I have nothing but praise for the police in general and for the officers who were there last Saturday night,' said the man's mum, who asked not to be identified to protect the identity of her vulnerable son. 'They acted professionally in what was a very difficult situation. I was there, so I witnessed it all. My concern is how the incident was portrayed afterwards in the media. 'Firstly the police described this as a firearms incident. There was no firearm. He had a knife and had barricaded himself into his own flat because he thought he was under threat but he didn't threaten anyone with the knife. 'When we arrived it was clear he was having a mental health episode. He thought he saw people standing outside his window but he lives on the fourth floor of a block of apartments, so that wasn't possible. 'But he thought he was under threat so he set the fire alarms off so the emergency services would come. The woman took a photo of the emergency services. News in 90 Seconds - Saturday, August 2 'When I arrived the Fire Service were already there. They could see there was no fire but they said they'd have to go in and check to make sure and to reset the alarms. 'As soon as the door was opened to his flat you could see he was no threat. He's about eight stone and very small and puny. He had barricaded himself into the kitchen and was 15ft back from the front door. 'He was very distressed and had lost all grasp of reality. He was saying he didn't know what was real and that he didn't believe the Fire Service were the Fire Service because he couldn't see the blue flashing lights. 'The Fire Service said they'd have to call the cops as he was holding a knife and they couldn't let me go in to talk to him which were all the right things to do. 'The police came with the ARU [Armed Response Unit] team and there was a stand-off but the way the incident was made to look afterwards it was as if he was running around the streets with a knife or a firearm making threats. Coates Row, Belfast. 'I don't know how the police officer got scalded. I had gone downstairs to take a photo of the ambulance and fire engines to show my son to show him the emergency services really were here. 'While I was doing a police officer decided to go into the flat and I think he thought he'd sort the thing out and that's when he had hot water thrown at him. I hope the officer makes a speedy recovery. 'You've got to remember the hall was full of clutter — a scooter and a bike — and he'd turned the kitchen table sideways and had been crouched down hiding in fear 15ft away from the front door. 'The firefighters who were there have told me afterwards they did not feel under threat and neighbours have come forward to say they want to give character references for my son. 'They said he has been living there for nine years without any trouble and that he's the best neighbour. That made me cry when one of them told me that.' Some media reporting the incident, including the BBC, even said the police had already charged the man with 'arson to endanger life and other related offences' when in fact he has not been charged with anything as he has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. On Tuesday a follow-up PSNI statement said: 'A 35-year-old man arrested on Sunday, 20th July, in connection with a firearms-related incident in the Coates Row area of east Belfast — during which one officer was scalded — has been released on bail to allow for further enquiries. The investigation continues.' The family remain upset that the incident is still being referred to as a firearms-related incident but the PSNI told the Sunday World last night: 'The report was treated as a firearms-related incident and ARU officers were required to attend.' The man's family say they still can't understand why the PSNI, days later, continue to refer to it as a firearms incident, but hope now their distressed relative will receive the proper mental health support and diagnosis he deserves. 'I think there's still a massive amount of work to do for the police to learn about handling a mental health issue like this,' says the man's mum.
Sunday World
13 hours ago
- Sunday World
House and cars torched in overnight arson attack in Co. Down
The cars were destroyed while the property suffered scorch damage. A house and two cars were set on fire in Co Down. Stock photo. Police are searching for a motive behind an overnight arson attack in Co Down. A house and two cars were set ablaze in Millisle early this morning. The cars were destroyed while the property suffered scorch damage. The PSNI has appealed for information. Detective Sergeant Westbury, said: 'In the early hours of Saturday morning, at around 3.30am, it was reported that a house and two cars were on fire in the Ballywalter Road area. A house and two cars were set on fire in Co Down. Stock photo. News in 90 Seconds - Saturday, August 2 Read more Two gardaí suspended and charged with corruption offences after alleged 'dodgy' drugs search 'Officers attended, alongside colleagues from the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, who extinguished the blaze. 'Thankfully, no one was in the property at the time of the fire. 'However, scorch damage has been caused to the rear of the property with the two cars being completely burnt out. 'This is being treated as arson with intent to endanger life and the investigation is underway to determine exactly what happened, a motive, and who was involved. 'I appeal to anyone who may be able to assist with their investigation or has CCTV, dash-cam or mobile phone footage, to contact us on 101, quoting reference 240 02/08/25. 'We are especially keen to hear from anyone who had noticed any suspicious activity or anything out of the ordinary in the Ballywalter Road area.'
