Nikita Hand faces cross-examination by Conor McGregor's lawyers in civil rape trial appeal
Nikita Hand
is facing cross-examination by lawyers for
Conor McGregor
as part of
his appeal against a High Court civil jury finding in favour of Ms Hand,
who alleged the mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter raped her in a Dublin hotel in 2018.
Ms Hand is expected to be in the
Court of Appeal
on Tuesday when the appeal opens before the three-judge court, comprising Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Michael MacGrath.
The appeal hearing is listed for up to three days.
Mr McGregor has appealed against a
High Court
civil jury's finding last November that he assaulted Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel, Sandyford, Dublin, on December 9th, 2018. The jury awarded Ms Hand almost €250,000 damages.
READ MORE
In evidence to the High Court, Ms Hand, a 36-year-old mother-of-one, said Mr McGregor raped her when she and a friend went with Mr McGregor and a friend of his, James Lawrence, to the hotel.
She said she told Mr McGregor she did not want to have intercourse with him, she felt uncomfortable, but he 'would not take no for an answer'. She was wearing a tampon at the time and would not have sex during her period, she said.
Mr McGregor denied rape and said he and Ms Hand had 'fully consensual', 'vigorous', 'athletic' sex. He said he was shocked when later shown photos of bruising on Ms Hand, that he had not caused them and that there was no tampon present.
When charging the jury, Mr Justice Alexander Owens told them, if a person proves they were subject by another person to non-consensual sexual activity, that is the tort – a civil wrong causing harm or loss leading to legal liability – of assault.
The jury found Mr McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand.
It found Mr Lawrence (35), of Rafter's Road, Drimnagh, had not assaulted her. She had alleged he assaulted her by having sex with her without her consent in the hotel.
Mr McGregor's grounds of appeal are wide-ranging, including claims over the conduct of the 12-day hearing by Mr Justice Owens.
Some grounds focus on whether the trial judge erred in directing that the jury be asked to answer whether or not Mr McGregor 'assaulted' Ms Hand rather than 'sexually assaulted' her.
As part of his appeal, Mr McGregor has provided affidavits by Samantha O'Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins, former neighbours of Ms Hand when she lived in Drimnagh.
Ms Hand, in a replying affidavit, has described as 'lies' claims by Ms O'Reilly that bruising on her body, which she alleges was caused by Mr McGregor in the hotel on December 9th, 2018, may have been caused during an alleged row between Ms Hand and her then partner in their home hours later.
[
Conor McGregor claims Nikita Hand's bruising may have been caused by alleged row with partner
Opens in new window
]
In her affidavit, Ms Hand said her then partner, Stephen Redmond, did not assault her on the night of December 9th/10th 2018, 'and never assaulted me in the course of our relationship, or since'.
She and Mr Redmond had had a verbal argument downstairs in their house that night, a recording of which was played during the High Court case, but that was not so loud that Ms O'Reilly could have heard it, she also said.
The appeal court will decide, during the full hearing of the appeal, whether the affidavits from Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins, sworn last January, are admissible.
It will also decide whether an affidavit from a former Northern Ireland state pathologist, Dr Jack Crane, is admissible for the appeal.
Mr McGregor claims that a report from Dr Crane, who was asked by the McGregor side to review material from the trial, is supportive of the credibility of the claims made by Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins.
Michael Staines, solicitor for Mr McGregor, will give evidence concerning the circumstances in which those two witnesses, whose affidavits were sworn last January, came forward.
Ms O'Reilly has alleged that, on the night of December 9th/10th, 2018, she had observed from the upstairs window of her house a row between Ms Hand and Mr Redmond. Ms O'Reilly said she inferred, from movements of Ms Hand's body, that Mr Redmond had assaulted her on the ground, and that this explained the bruising on her body seen the next day.
The MMA fighter had persistently denied he assaulted Ms Hand and claims the new material came into his possession after the High Court case and provides a 'plausible' explanation for bruising on Ms Hand's body.
The extensive bruising seen on Ms Hand's body when examined by a doctor in the Rotunda hospital in Dublin the day after her encounter with Mr McGregor was significant evidence in the High Court case. Gardaí took photos of the bruising on Tuesday, December 11th, 2018.
An appeal by Mr Lawrence against the trial judge's refusal to order Ms Hand to pay his legal costs of the trial will be heard alongside Mr McGregor's appeal.
The jury was told by Mr McGregor that he had paid his friend's costs for the High Court hearing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
11 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Manager who sent cleaner home over blue hair dye wins €10,000 at WRC
A manager found by her employer to have produced a 'fraudulent' training record after sending a cleaner home for turning up to work with blue dye in her hair has secured €10,000 in compensation following her sacking. Michelle Murray lost her job as a client services manager with Cagney Maintenance Service Ltd, trading as Cagney Contract Cleaning, last August, following the findings of a company investigation into her conduct, which were found to be 'reasonable' by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). However, the tribunal concluded that although dismissal was a 'reasonable' sanction, the company had erred by failing to allow her cross-examine her accusers, rendering her dismissal unfair. The tribunal heard that suspicions were raised when a human resources (HR) manager noticed 'a swipe of Tipp-Ex' on a document recording that the worker sent home had received induction training covering rules on 'extreme hair colours'. READ MORE The tribunal heard that since 2012, Ms Murray had been in charge of a 'flagship contract' at a prominent site in Dublin City, run as a joint venture in the events industry between the Office of Public Works (OPW) and a private enterprise. The tribunal heard that in mid-March 2023, a team leader working under Ms Murray, Sylvia Sanchez, arrived to work at the site with some blue dye in her hair. Ms Murray said she was contacted by staff of the client site telling her this was not allowed, and that she told Ms Sanchez this was 'against the dress code' and that she 'would have to change it'. Ms Sanchez 'was upset and left the site' she added. 'Your hair is lovely, but I can't allow this on [the site],' Ms Murray wrote in a text message of 11th March, 2023, to the worker, which was opened to the hearing. Ms Sanchez quit a few days later, the tribunal heard. Around this time, in the spring of 2023, Ms Murray had a number of absences due to family reasons, force majeure and illness, the tribunal was told – spending six weeks out of work before returning on 4th May, 2023. Ms Murray said she was 'ambushed and blindsided' when the firm's managing director called her to a meeting on her first day back and told her she was the subject of multiple allegations before suspending her. Ms Murray said in her evidence that she was 'confident' Ms Sanchez was aware of the company's policy on hair colouring as she had 'undergone induction training on two separate occasions'. Ms Sanchez, who was called as a witness by the company, said she was not aware of the ban on hair dye and told the WRC she had other colleagues with dyed hair – including one with 'purple and green' in her hair. Gareth Kyne of Management Support Services, who appeared for the respondent, questioned Ms Sanchez on a document stating that she had been at an induction course covering hair dye policy. The worker told the tribunal she did not have the induction training and that her signature was 'forged' on the document. She told the hearing she had observed Ms Murray 'yelling' at her co-workers and said that some workers had 'left the job because of the treatment they received' from Ms Murray. She added that the company would not let her back to work unless she changed her hair colour. A former HR officer with the firm, Nicole O'Carroll, carried out an investigation into complaints against Ms Murray. She told the tribunal she noticed 'a swipe of Tipp Ex' on one of the attendance sheets and wondered whether the document had been 'doctored'. Ms O'Carroll said her investigation findings included 'clear fraudulent information provided in a grievance to mislead an investigation' – confirming that the 'fraudulent information' she referred to in her report was Ms Sanchez's training record. Among other allegations were reports of Ms Murray 'shouting at colleagues' and using 'vulgar and expletive language', she noted. Ms Murray's position in evidence was that she 'did not falsify any document', 'did not use Tipp-Ex on any document' and had 'no knowledge of how it got on to the document'. 'I'm not changing my story. It is how it is, and it did not happen,' she said – telling the WRC the behaviours she was accused of 'did not take place'. Ms Murray told the tribunal she had given Cagney '100 per cent at all times over the 17 years' only to have her livelihood and her 'good work and name' taken away. She said the WRC hearings were 'the only opportunity she got to speak'. Adjudicator John Harraghy expressed 'reservations' about the investigation, but concluded it came to 'reasonable conclusions' and the decision to dismiss Ms Murray was also 'reasonable'. However, the dismissal was rendered unfair because Ms Murray was denied the right to cross-examine her accusers during a disciplinary meeting, he concluded. Mr Harraghy ruled the unfair dismissal complaint 'well-founded', concluding: 'I am not convinced that the respondent's disciplinary procedure was fair and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.' Ms Murray had sought 'the maximum award' of compensation of over €118,000 – but Mr Harraghy noted her evidence that she had opted to work just one day a week following her dismissal 'to avoid exceeding the earnings threshold to qualify for Carer's Benefit' He decided €5,580 was 'just and equitable' compensation in the case. He awarded Ms Murray a further €4,500 for a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 on foot of a finding that the company had failed to furnish Ms Murray with a full statement of her terms of conditions of employment when she was hired in April 2006. Further employment rights complaints by Ms Murray were either withdrawn or dismissed by the tribunal. Robert Donnelly, BL appeared for Ms Murray in the case, instructed by solicitor James Kavanagh of Padraig Hyland & Co. The company was represented by HR consultancy Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd.
Irish Examiner
2 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Conor McGregor drops key claim minutes before appeal against civil conviction for Nikita Hand assault
Conor McGregor has dramatically withdrawn one of his main grounds of appeal in his civil conviction for the assault of Nikita Hand. The Court of Appeal heard that Mr McGregor no longer wished to proceed with a motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the case, as there was no legal authority for doing so. The fresh evidence related to proposed testimony by former Northern Irish state pathologist Professor Jack Crane, concerning sworn affidavits from Ms Hand's former neighbours — Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins — who claimed they heard an altercation within Ms Hand's apartment at the time of the disputed incident in December 2018. Mark Mulholland KC, representing Mr McGregor, said he had an obligation to the court to withdraw this specific ground of appeal as it could not be legally sustained. The three-judge panel expressed surprise at the late withdrawal of the motion, with Justice Isobel Kennedy noting that the situation was 'unsatisfactory.' Counsel for Ms Hand, John Gordon SC, said he had only been informed of the withdrawal 10 minutes before the appeal hearing was due to begin. He noted that his client had been 'put through the wringer again' and argued that it had been alleged she was a liar—an allegation which, he said, had now been 'conceded' by Mr McGregor. Supporters of Nikita Hand outside the Court of Appeal today. Photo: Niall Carson/PA He further argued that Mr McGregor should face a charge of inducing others to commit perjury on his behalf. He added that 'an apology would be a start' in making amends to his client. The judges rose to consider the impact of the withdrawal, and upon returning, concluded there was 'no point' in allowing the ground of appeal to proceed when the plaintiff, Mr McGregor, no longer wished to pursue it. A motion for costs regarding the withdrawal will be made in due course. The appeal continues on the remaining grounds, which include the nature of the cross-examination of Mr McGregor during the trial last November. Read More Conor McGregor applies to bring in new evidence in appeal against finding he assaulted Nikita Hand
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Conor McGregor withdraws ‘fresh evidence' ground of rape trial appeal
Conor Mc Gregor 's appeal against a High Court civil jury finding in favour of Nikita Hand , who alleged he raped her in a Dublin hotel, has opened with a dramatic development. Lawyers for Mr McGregor applied today to withdraw a 'fresh evidence' ground of the appeal. This was related to claims by a former neighbour of Ms Hand that, from her own home, she had heard and observed a row between Ms Hand and her former partner at their home, within hours of the encounter between Ms Hand and Mr McGregor in the Beacon hotel in December 9th, 2018. Ms Hand has described the claims by her former neighbour Samanta O'Reilly as 'lies'. Mark Mulholland KC, said the application to withdraw the application to admit the neighbours' evidence, arose from consideration of law which indicated that the evidence of a former Northern Ireland State Pathologist, Dr Jack Crane, was not admissible. The evidence of Prof Crane was in his view necessary to corroborate the evidence of Ms O'Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins, counsel said. READ MORE Today, John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, said he was 'shocked' at the application to withdraw which he had only heard of on his way to court. This was 'totally unacceptable', he said, the court has to give leave to withdraw, and he was opposing the application. Ms Hand has been 'put through the wringer yet again', in this application and in the newspaper world where the application had been reported. She had answered the claims by her neighbours Ms O'Reilly and Steven Cummins by saying they were lies. That was now conceded and the court should allow him cross-examine Ms O'Reilly, her partner and Mr McGregor's solicitor Michael Staines about the matter, counsel said. Mr Gordon indicated there might be an issue about referring matters to the DPP for consideration of perjury proceedings. Mr Justice Brian O'Moore said to say that he was bemused by Mr McGregor's side's application was 'a kind way' of putting his view on the matter. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said she shared her colleague's view. After considering what the court described as the 'last-minute application', Ms Justice Kennedy said Mr McGregor's side could withdraw their motions to adduce the evidence to Ms O'Reilly, Mr Cummins and Dr Crane. Mr Gordon asked would Mr McGregor's side consider offering an apology to Ms Hand over the matter. Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, said that would be addressed by Mr Staines in due course. Ms Hand, accompanied by her partner Gary Foy, her mother Deborah, a cousin and some friends, is in the packed Hugh Kennedy courtroom in the Four Courts for the appeal hearing. Mr McGregor is not in court. Ms Hand is represented by Ray Boland SC and John Gordon SC, with barrister Siún Leonowicz, instructed by Coleman Legal LLP. Mr McGregor is represented by Remy Farrell SC and Mark Mulholland KC with barrister Shelley Horan, instructed by Michael J Staines & Company, solicitors. Mr McGregor has appealed against a High Court civil jury's finding last November that he assaulted Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel, Sanydford, Dublin, on December 9th, 2018. The jury awarded Ms Hand €250,000 damages and the trial judge, Mr Justice Alexander Owens, subsequently ordered Mr McGregor to pay her legal costs. In evidence to the High Court, Ms Hand, a 36-year-old mother of one, said Mr McGregor had raped her when she and a friend went with Mr McGregor, and a friend of his, James Lawrence to the hotel. She said she told Mr McGregor she did not want to have intercourse with him, she felt uncomfortable, but he 'would not take no for an answer'. She was wearing a tampon at the time and would not have sex during her period, she said. Mr McGregor denied rape and said he and Ms Hand had 'fully consensual', 'vigorous', 'athletic' sex. He said he was shocked when later shown photos of bruising on Ms Hand, he had not caused them and there was no tampon. When charging the jury, Mr Justice Owens told them, if a person proves they were subject by another person to non-consensual sexual activity, that is the tort [a civil wrong causing harm or loss leading to legal liability] of assault. The jury found Mr McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand. It found Mr Lawrence (35), of Rafter's Road, Drimnagh, had not assaulted Ms Hand through allegedly having sex with her without her consent in the hotel. Mr McGregor's grounds of appeal are wide-ranging, including claims over the conduct of the 12-day hearing by Mr Justice Owens. Some grounds focus on whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury be asked to answer whether or not Mr McGregor 'assaulted' Ms Hand rather than 'sexually assaulted' her. As part of his appeal, Mr McGregor provided affidavits by Samantha O'Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins, former neighbours of Ms Hand when she lived in Drimnagh. Ms Hand, in a replying affidavit, has described as 'lies' claims by Ms O'Reilly that bruising on her body, which she alleges was caused by Mr McGregor in the hotel on December 9th 2018, may have been caused following an alleged row between Ms Hand and her then partner in their home hours later. In her affidavit, Ms Hand said her then partner, Stephen Redmond, did not assault her on the night of December 9th/10th, 2018 'and never assaulted me in the course of our relationship or since'. She and Mr Redmond had had a verbal argument downstairs in their house that night, a recording of which was played during the High Court case, but that was not so loud that Ms O'Reilly could have heard it, she also said. Before today's development, the appeal court was being asked to decide, during the full hearing of the appeal, whether the affidavits from Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins, sworn last January, are admissible. It was also due to decide whether an affidavit from Dr Crane was admissible. Mr McGregor claims that a report from Dr Crane, who was asked by the McGregor side to review material from the trial, is supportive of the credibility of the claims made by Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins. Ms O'Reilly alleged that, on the night of December 9th/10th, 2018, she had observed from the upstairs window of her house a row between Ms Hand and Mr Redmond. Ms O'Reilly said she inferred, from movements of Ms Hand's body, that Mr Redmond had assaulted her on the ground. The mixed martial arts fighter had persistently denied he assaulted Ms Hand and claims the new material came into his possession after the High Court case and provides a 'plausible' explanation for bruising on Ms Hand's body. The extensive bruising seen on Ms Hand's body when examined by a doctor in the Rotunda hospital the day after her encounter with Mr McGregor was significant evidence in the High Court case. Gardaí took photos of the bruising on Tuesday December 11th, 2018. An appeal by James Lawrence against the trial judge's refusal to order Ms Hand to pay his legal costs of the trial will be heard alongside Mr McGregor's appeal. The jury was told by Mr McGregor he had paid his friend's costs for the High Court hearing.
