02-07-2025
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
