Withdrawal of 'fresh evidence' meant Nikita Hand never got to address claims against her in court
We learned that so-called 'fresh evidence' in the form of claims made by a former neighbour of Nikita Hand which McGregor wanted to introduce to back up his appeal were dropped yesterday at the very last minute.
Now we know that this withdrawal will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) by the Court of Appeal, after potential perjury concerns were raised by Hand's legal team.
Perjury is a criminal offence meaning to wilfully make a false statement while under oath in legal proceedings.
The withdrawal of an application to submit fresh evidence to support an appeal at this point is a highly unusual move and one that was not expected before proceedings got underway this week. On Tuesday, those in court anticipated a cross-examination of the new witnesses during the scheduled three-day hearing.
Hand's lawyers told the court that the application to introduce the evidence was made 'to undermine my client's reputation' pending the outcome of the appeal.
'My client put in an application calling this out as lies,' he continued.
'She was entitled to her opportunity yesterday to call that out in this court and they withdrew the application and so prevented her from calling out what was a series of highly disparaging and unfair criticisms of my client.'
Indeed, the outcome means that Nikita Hand had no chance to get into the witness box and address the claims made about her that have been circulating in the public domain for months now, since the wheels of the appeal to the November 2024 ruling started turning.
What were the claims?
The introduction of this 'fresh evidence' was first mentioned back in March at a hearing to progress McGregor's appeal against the finding of a civil jury that he raped Hand at the Beacon Hotel in Dublin on 9 December 2018.
Details emerged at a second hearing two months later, when counsel for the MMA fighter said a couple had come forward with the new evidence.
Advertisement
The woman, Samantha O'Reilly, swore an affidavit to say that she saw, from her own home, Hand being assaulted by her then-partner in the early hours of 10 December 2018 after she returned home from the hotel.
She claimed that she saw the man push Hand to the ground, and that while she could not see exactly what he was doing, she believed that from the movement of his body, he was kicking and punching Hand.
The court heard that the woman came forward with her allegation after reading about the civil trial in the media, and that she had sent McGregor a message on Instagram in relation to it.
Further details from the sworn affidavits of O'Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins were subsequently reported in the media, and as a result, discussed extensively on social media.
Conor McGregor had sought to introduce the 'fresh evidence' to support his appeal.
Alamy Stock Photo
Alamy Stock Photo
This was not too long after Hand brought proceedings against McGregor over CCTV footage that was shown during her civil trial against him, when a business associate of his was quoted in newspapers saying that the footage would be made public in January.
At the time, the judge said he was satisfied that there was a 'real and demonstrable risk' that McGregor would provide the CCTV footage to Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, who runs a company which distributes McGregor's stout in Italy,
and ordered him not to do so
.
For those who are fans of McGregor or who disagreed with the finding of the jury in the civil trial, this was seen as proof that Hand had been lying about him sexually assaulting her. The alleged 'fresh evidence' was used to the same effect.
What did Nikita Hand's lawyers tell the court?
Her lawyers referred to this in the Court of Appeal this week, after the application to submit the new evidence was abruptly dropped at the 11th hour.
McGregor's lawyers said they had wanted O'Reilly's statements to be used in tandem with testimony from the former state pathologist for Northern Ireland, Professor Jack Crane. However, legal difficulties arose in relation to submitting his report as evidence.
Mark Mulholland KC for McGregor said that without the corroboration of Professor Crane's report, the lawyers did not believe it was a sustainable ground for appeal. The judges questioned the logic of this move.
John Gordon SC claimed that the reason for the withdrawal had been 'dressed up' and said Hand had 'been put through the wringer yet again' by the court – and the newspaper world – as a result of the claims being put into the public domain.
The claims made by O'Reilly also featured heavily on social media, where fans of McGregor used it as a talking point, speculating that this incident was what had actually caused Hand's bruising rather than McGregor assaulting her.
Related Reads
Court of Appeal to refer Conor McGregor's withdrawal of 'fresh evidence' to DPP
Conor McGregor withdraws bid to bring new evidence at last minute as civil appeal gets underway
Gordon told the court that the new claims called Hand a liar and made 'serious allegations' against her former partner, adding that McGregor's counsel now 'waltz in here and think that they can walk away from this in a sentence'.
He said Hand had sworn in her responding affidavit that O'Reilly's claims were 'all lies' and 'that has now been conceded'.
He called for an apology to be made to Hand, and for the matter to be referred to the DPP for perjury proceedings, with him also calling for McGregor himself to be referred for subornation of perjury – essentially, permitting someone to commit perjury.
'She was entitled to her opportunity yesterday to call that out in this court and they withdrew the application, and so prevented her from calling out what was a series of highly disparaging and unfair criticisms of my client,' he told the court today.
What happens next?
We know that the matter is now in the hands of the DPP, which could potentially lead to criminal prosecution.
What we do not know is what the judges saw that prompted them to make the referral.
Hand's lawyers attempted to introduce material which they intended to use as part of their cross examination of Samantha O'Reilly.
However, McGregor's counsel objected to it being introduced, saying that it would not be appropriate for the matter to be dealt with as part of the appeal proceedings.
Mr Justice Brian O'Moore, one of the three Court of Appeal judges hearing the matter, said that introducing the material now could prejudice any potential future criminal proceedings, 'and that's the last thing you or this court would want'.
The judges went on to read the material privately and decided that there was no need for the content to be disclosed in court, but confirmed they would refer the matter to the DPP.
For now, we will have to wait until the DPP reviews the material and decides whether there are any criminal proceedings to follow to see what happens next.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
Radiographer banned from conducting X-rays on anyone under 18 for 12 months
A radiographer who was found guilty of professional misconduct over his inappropriate behaviour in carrying out a chest X-ray on a young female patient whom he later tried to contact via social media has been banned from conducting any radiography services on anyone under 18 for 12 months. The prohibition on carrying out X-rays on children and adolescents apart from exceptional circumstances and then only under the supervision of a healthcare practitioner is one of five conditions imposed on the registration of radiographer, Adrian Peconcillo, by CORU – the regulatory body of health and social care professionals. It follows a fitness-to-practise inquiry by CORU earlier this year at which Peconcillo admitted he had acted in a manner that was not clinically justified or appropriate when he was carrying out a chest X-ray on a 16-year-old girl at Tallaght University Hospital on January 25, 2023. The inquiry heard that the patient had come out of the changing area undressed from the waist up and covering her chest due to the failure of Peconcillo to provide her with a hospital gown prior to her undressing. The radiographer – an Irish citizen who comes originally from the Philippines – was also accused of looking at her in a forward-facing manner whilst her back was against the X-ray board and later inviting her to look at her X-ray while she remained undressed. Evidence was heard that Peconcillo had also sent the teenager one or more follow requests to her Instagram account on the same date that were inappropriate and without any clinical justification. It emerged that the radiographer had tried to contact her with his own Instagram account which was in the name of 'Adrian Wanderman'. He had originally claimed in correspondence with CORU that he had sent the Instagram request to an Australian DJ with the same name as the girl. The girl's father said his daughter had been doing her mock exams at the time and her head was 'all over the place' and she was blaming herself for the incident. The inquiry was held after a formal complaint was made to CORU about Peconcillo's behaviour by the radiography services manager at TUH, Laura Gannon. It heard that Peconcillo was suspended by TUH after the teenager's parents had made a complaint to the hospital and he was subsequently dismissed in April 2023 following an internal investigation. The CORU inquiry heard he has not worked as a radiographer since but had found employment as a phlebotomist at St Vincent's University Hospital in Dublin where he primarily works with geriatric patients but on a salary 50% less than he earned in TUH. The fitness-to-practise committee also found the radiographer's actions constituted breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics adopted by the Radiographers Registration Board. They related to his failure to maintain high standards of personal conduct and behaviour and to use social media responsibly. The committee noted that Peconcillo had shown remorse and recognised his poor judgement in dealing with the young patient. The committee's chairperson, Geraldine Feeney, said they had considered a period of suspension to be the appropriate sanction but had decided against it in circumstances where Mr Peconcillo had not worked as a radiographer for almost two years. The committee rejected an application by his legal representatives for the inquiry to be concluded by his consenting to admonishment and censure and giving an undertaking about his future conduct. Ms Feeney said the seriousness of the proven allegations required some form of sanction. She said the committee also recognised that the incidents had been devastating for the radiographer both professionally and personally after he lost his job and was refused access to his only child by his former partner. The committee observed that there were 'system shortcomings' within TUH that had facilitated Peconcillo's actions albeit they did not excuse such conduct. Other conditions imposed on the radiographer require him to complete courses relating to safeguarding children and vulnerable adults as well as ones on social media and professional practice and relating to professional ethics, trust, care and dignity in the workplace. All courses have to be completed within 12 months and at his own expense. CORU also required Peconcillo to notify any current or prospective employer about the findings against him and the conditions attached to his registration to practise as a radiographer. The decision to attach conditions to the radiographer's registration was confirmed by the High Court earlier this week.
The Irish Sun
6 hours ago
- The Irish Sun
Woman rushed to hospital after being shot at home as cops launch urgent hunt for gunman
A WOMAN was rushed to hospital today after being shot at home in the early hours. Cops raced to the scene in Dudley, 3 Police are investigating a chilling shooting in the West Midlands Credit: Alamy 3 The shooter is still missing Credit: Alamy 3 Police are appealing to neighbours and friends for information Credit: Alamy A spokesperson "We were called to reports of a firearms discharge at an address in Priory Road, Dudley, just after midnight today. "Two shots were fired at an address, and a woman was hit by one of the shots. "She was taken to Read More on UK Crimes The road has been closed by police who will be remaining in the area. Reassurance patrols will also be deployed in a bid to make residents feel at ease. Now, cops are appealing to anyone with information about the incident. A spokesperson for the force said: "Anyone who witnessed the incident, or may have dash cam or doorbell footage, is asked to get in touch with us via 101, quoting log 66 of 3 July." Most read in The Sun They added that Crimestoppers can be contacted anonymously on 0800 555 111. The news comes just days after an Nearby buildings were quickly evacuated by police as a precaution, while a bomb disposal unit swooped to the scene. Although the police did not confirm what the package was, the cordon was later lifted - allowing locals to return to work. More to follow... For the latest news on this story keep checking back at The Sun Online is your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video. Like us on Facebook at
The Journal
17 hours ago
- The Journal
Withdrawal of 'fresh evidence' meant Nikita Hand never got to address claims against her in court
THE DEVELOPMENTS FROM the Court of Appeal in relation to Conor McGregor's civil appeal over the last 48 hours have been quite dramatic. We learned that so-called 'fresh evidence' in the form of claims made by a former neighbour of Nikita Hand which McGregor wanted to introduce to back up his appeal were dropped yesterday at the very last minute. Now we know that this withdrawal will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) by the Court of Appeal, after potential perjury concerns were raised by Hand's legal team. Perjury is a criminal offence meaning to wilfully make a false statement while under oath in legal proceedings. The withdrawal of an application to submit fresh evidence to support an appeal at this point is a highly unusual move and one that was not expected before proceedings got underway this week. On Tuesday, those in court anticipated a cross-examination of the new witnesses during the scheduled three-day hearing. Hand's lawyers told the court that the application to introduce the evidence was made 'to undermine my client's reputation' pending the outcome of the appeal. 'My client put in an application calling this out as lies,' he continued. 'She was entitled to her opportunity yesterday to call that out in this court and they withdrew the application and so prevented her from calling out what was a series of highly disparaging and unfair criticisms of my client.' Indeed, the outcome means that Nikita Hand had no chance to get into the witness box and address the claims made about her that have been circulating in the public domain for months now, since the wheels of the appeal to the November 2024 ruling started turning. What were the claims? The introduction of this 'fresh evidence' was first mentioned back in March at a hearing to progress McGregor's appeal against the finding of a civil jury that he raped Hand at the Beacon Hotel in Dublin on 9 December 2018. Details emerged at a second hearing two months later, when counsel for the MMA fighter said a couple had come forward with the new evidence. Advertisement The woman, Samantha O'Reilly, swore an affidavit to say that she saw, from her own home, Hand being assaulted by her then-partner in the early hours of 10 December 2018 after she returned home from the hotel. She claimed that she saw the man push Hand to the ground, and that while she could not see exactly what he was doing, she believed that from the movement of his body, he was kicking and punching Hand. The court heard that the woman came forward with her allegation after reading about the civil trial in the media, and that she had sent McGregor a message on Instagram in relation to it. Further details from the sworn affidavits of O'Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins were subsequently reported in the media, and as a result, discussed extensively on social media. Conor McGregor had sought to introduce the 'fresh evidence' to support his appeal. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo This was not too long after Hand brought proceedings against McGregor over CCTV footage that was shown during her civil trial against him, when a business associate of his was quoted in newspapers saying that the footage would be made public in January. At the time, the judge said he was satisfied that there was a 'real and demonstrable risk' that McGregor would provide the CCTV footage to Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, who runs a company which distributes McGregor's stout in Italy, and ordered him not to do so . For those who are fans of McGregor or who disagreed with the finding of the jury in the civil trial, this was seen as proof that Hand had been lying about him sexually assaulting her. The alleged 'fresh evidence' was used to the same effect. What did Nikita Hand's lawyers tell the court? Her lawyers referred to this in the Court of Appeal this week, after the application to submit the new evidence was abruptly dropped at the 11th hour. McGregor's lawyers said they had wanted O'Reilly's statements to be used in tandem with testimony from the former state pathologist for Northern Ireland, Professor Jack Crane. However, legal difficulties arose in relation to submitting his report as evidence. Mark Mulholland KC for McGregor said that without the corroboration of Professor Crane's report, the lawyers did not believe it was a sustainable ground for appeal. The judges questioned the logic of this move. John Gordon SC claimed that the reason for the withdrawal had been 'dressed up' and said Hand had 'been put through the wringer yet again' by the court – and the newspaper world – as a result of the claims being put into the public domain. The claims made by O'Reilly also featured heavily on social media, where fans of McGregor used it as a talking point, speculating that this incident was what had actually caused Hand's bruising rather than McGregor assaulting her. Related Reads Court of Appeal to refer Conor McGregor's withdrawal of 'fresh evidence' to DPP Conor McGregor withdraws bid to bring new evidence at last minute as civil appeal gets underway Gordon told the court that the new claims called Hand a liar and made 'serious allegations' against her former partner, adding that McGregor's counsel now 'waltz in here and think that they can walk away from this in a sentence'. He said Hand had sworn in her responding affidavit that O'Reilly's claims were 'all lies' and 'that has now been conceded'. He called for an apology to be made to Hand, and for the matter to be referred to the DPP for perjury proceedings, with him also calling for McGregor himself to be referred for subornation of perjury – essentially, permitting someone to commit perjury. 'She was entitled to her opportunity yesterday to call that out in this court and they withdrew the application, and so prevented her from calling out what was a series of highly disparaging and unfair criticisms of my client,' he told the court today. What happens next? We know that the matter is now in the hands of the DPP, which could potentially lead to criminal prosecution. What we do not know is what the judges saw that prompted them to make the referral. Hand's lawyers attempted to introduce material which they intended to use as part of their cross examination of Samantha O'Reilly. However, McGregor's counsel objected to it being introduced, saying that it would not be appropriate for the matter to be dealt with as part of the appeal proceedings. Mr Justice Brian O'Moore, one of the three Court of Appeal judges hearing the matter, said that introducing the material now could prejudice any potential future criminal proceedings, 'and that's the last thing you or this court would want'. The judges went on to read the material privately and decided that there was no need for the content to be disclosed in court, but confirmed they would refer the matter to the DPP. For now, we will have to wait until the DPP reviews the material and decides whether there are any criminal proceedings to follow to see what happens next. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
