Latest news with #Hand
The Journal
34 minutes 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
Daily Mirror
7 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Conor McGregor faces wait over appeal against sexual assault verdict
Conor McGregor withdrew evidence in his appeal against a civil ruling that he sexually assaulted Nikita Hand after a night out in December 2018 An Irish court has said it will refer claims by witnesses Conor McGregor pulled from his appeal to the director of public prosecutions (DPP), after concerns about perjury arose. It came after a request by the lawyer of Nikita Hand, 35, who successfully sued McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. McGregor, who told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand, launched an appeal after a jury of eight women and four men found him civilly liable for assault. That appeal was expected to contain fresh evidence following an affidavit from a former neighbour of Ms Hand, Samantha O'Reilly, who said she had witnessed a physical row between Ms Hand and her then-partner at about the same time of the incident at the Beacon hotel. Ms Hand denies any altercation with her former partner and the court heard she characterised the claims from Ms O'Reilly and Ms O'Reilly's partner Steven Cummins as 'lies'. On Tuesday, McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew that ground of appeal, saying it would no longer be relying on the material. On Wednesday, Ms Hand's lawyer John Gordon SC said she had been disadvantaged by 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' in 'widely published' claims from the affidavits, adding that she did not have a chance to reply to them in court before they were withdrawn. Mr Gordon said the application to introduce the witnesses was not just to produce further evidence, but also to 'undermine my client's reputation', including by stating she had lied. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, had raised concerns that the request was an attempt to get the matter on the record for the media, adding that this would be 'wholly inappropriate'. Mr Gordon said Ms Hand was 'put through the wringer yet again' and expressed a desire to cross examine Mr Cummins and Ms O'Reilly. He asked the Court of Appeal to use its powers to refer matters to the DPP, citing concerns around perjury. The three judges of the court, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, said they would do so. After a day and a half of representations, they also said they would reserve their judgment on the appeal matters to a later date, adding that decisions relating to costs that arose during deliberations would be decided at that point also. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded around £200,000 in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about £1.1million in legal costs following November's trial. McGregor's appeal proceeded on other grounds, largely relating to the circumstances under which his 'no comment' answers to gardai were allowed to enter the trial. Remy Farrell SC, also for McGregor, said on Tuesday that an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. He said this occurred under cross-examination by Mr Gordon and was based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had made a comment about wanting to seek the best advice from his solicitors and accused Ms Hand's side of incorrectly interpreting the same comments as a suggestion that McGregor had sought to present himself as someone who was being fully co-operative with gardai. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation. He said it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible. Meanwhile, McGregor's co-defendant has also appealed against the trial judge's decision not to award him his legal costs. During the same trial in November, the jury did not find James Lawrence had assaulted Ms Hand at the hotel. However, trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens decided that Ms Hand would not have to pay Mr Lawrence's costs arising out of the proceedings. His legal team is challenging whether that decision was correct and reasonable, arguing that Ms Hand should have to pay as the jury did not find he had assaulted her. Mr Boland said the success of Mr Lawrence's appeal would present 'grubby realities' where McGregor would effectively 'snaffle' back money he had to pay in damages. He told the court that it had been confirmed that McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence's legal costs. He said that the legal bill for Mr Lawrence, which would be due to be paid by Ms Hand if his appeal is successful, is likely to exceed the award of damages to be paid by McGregor. Mr Boland said this would set the jury's verdict on damages 'at nought' when McGregor was 'preparing to pay over the balance' of all costs relating to the matters. He said that McGregor would 'snaffle' back the money he is paying for damages if the appeal of 'his avatar' meant that Ms Hand had to pay Mr Lawrence's costs instead. He said this would not be in the interests of justice. John Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, said Mr Owens made the decision not to award costs based on an incorrect interpretation of the jury's verdict and that his client had an entitlement to costs. The Irish Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment in relation to the appeals of McGregor and Lawrence and will give its decisions at a later date.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
McGregor could use Lawrence appeal as ‘avatar' to reduce legal bill, court told
Conor McGregor's co-defendant winning an appeal over costs would present 'grubby realities' where the fighter effectively 'snaffles' back money he had to pay in damages, an Irish court has been told. Lawyers for a woman who successfully sued McGregor have argued he could use his co-defendant as an 'avatar' because the mixed martial arts fighter had paid his legal costs. Judges at the Court of Appeal in Dublin are considering applications from both McGregor and James Lawrence, who was the co-defendant in a civil case taken last year. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel in Dublin in December 2018. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euro in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about 1.3 million euro in legal costs. The jury did not find that Mr Lawrence had assaulted her during the same series of incidents at the hotel. The trial judge decided that Ms Hand would not have to pay Mr Lawrence's costs arising out of the proceedings. His legal team is challenging whether that decision was correct and reasonable, arguing that Ms Hand should have to pay as the jury did not find he had assaulted her. Meanwhile, McGregor's lawyers are arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardai into their investigation of the matter. On Wednesday, Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, told the court that it had been confirmed that McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence's legal costs. He said that the legal bill for Mr Lawrence, which would be due to be paid by Ms Hand if his appeal is successful, is likely to exceed the award of damages to be paid by McGregor. Mr Boland said this would set the jury's verdict on damages 'at naught' when McGregor was 'preparing to pay over the balance' of all costs relating to the matters. He said that McGregor would 'snaffle' back the money he is paying for damages if the appeal of 'his avatar' meant that Ms Hand had to pay Mr Lawrence's costs instead. He said this would not be in the interests of justice. John Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, said an 'unusual situation' had arisen in the case around the interpretation of the jury's verdict by trial judge Alexander Owens. He said the point he was making in the appeal was essentially that 'costs follow the event'. Given the principle of jury secrecy, he said the event is the verdict and not a subsequent interpretation of it. Mr Fitzgerald said the verdict was that Mr Lawrence had not assaulted Ms Hand. He said said his client had said that he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. He added that Ms Hand had also said she did not believe they had sex, and that Mr Lawrence was lying. Mr Fitzgerald said this begs the question as to how it made its way into a pleading on her behalf. He said it had been open to Ms Hand not to sue Mr Lawrence. Mr Fitzgerald said trial judge Mr Alexander Owens' decision not to award costs was based on his incorrect interpretation of the jury's verdict. He said Mr Owens could have added additional questions to the issue paper or asked the jury direct questions about their verdict. He said said defendants had a presumptive entitlement to costs and 'we shouldn't even be having this discussion'. Ray Boland, SC, for Ms Hand, said this entitlement arises where they have incurred expenses – but this was not the case for Mr Lawrence as there was an 'unusual situation' that McGregor had borne the costs. He said it was 'rich' for Mr Fitzgerald to be raising the matter in appeal when there was 'deafening silence' from him during discussions on the issue paper and whether there should have been additional questions for the jury following the verdict. Mr Fitzgerald said the purpose of the appeal was to consider the correctness of the judge's reasoning – and that he had been satisfied with the issue paper. On the argument that it would deprive Ms Hand of her damages, Mr Fitzgerald said there had to be cost implications for her choice to bring a case 'she never believed in'. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said Mr Boland was making a 'difficult' argument by asking judges at the Court of Appeal to consider the consequences of their verdict as it was their job to consider whether the trial decision was appropriate. Ms Justice Kennedy and the other two judges presiding over the proceedings will deliver their findings at a later date.
Extra.ie
17 hours ago
- Extra.ie
Court of Appeal shouldn't have been told about McGregor's 100 'no comment' replies
A jury should never have heard that MMA fighter Conor McGregor answered 'no comment' more than 100 times when questioned by gardaí over his alleged rape of Nikita Hand, the Court of Appeal has been told. In his appeal against a High Court verdict won by Ms Hand last November, McGregor's legal team argued their client had been exercising his right to silence. Barrister Remy Farrell said High Court judge Alexander Owens had recognised this right and McGregor's right to avoid self-incrimination. He said the 'no comments' were wrongly brought into the civil trial last November by Ms Hand's legal team and Judge Owens. Nikita Hand arriving at the Court of Appeal in Dublin. Pic: Collins Courts Mr Farrell said his side had flagged its concerns about the 'no comments' being 'manifestly prejudicial' during the High Court hearing, but Ms Hand's side simply decided to 'take a punt' and 'let it all hang out'. He said the result was that, although they had been directed not to do so, the jury were left with evidence that could allow them to draw an inference about why McGregor was refusing to answer the Garda questions. McGregor is attempting to overturn the verdict of the jury, which found he had assaulted Ms Hand, 36, and ordered he pay her close to €250,000 in damages. A judge then ruled he must pay her legal costs, estimated to be around €1.3million. Conor McGregor. Pic: Leah Farrell/ He wants a new hearing of the High Court case. Ms Hand was at the packed Court of Appeal yesterday to hear legal arguments, accompanied by her partner Gary Foy, her mother Deborah, a cousin and friends. Also present was gender-based violence activist Natasha O'Brien. McGregor was not in court, although his black Rolls-Royce, with tinted windows, was seen driving past the Four Courts yesterday. A group of people, including TD Ruth Coppinger, gathered outside the court holding a banner reading, 'We stand with Nikita Hand'. Mr Farrell said the questioning of McGregor by gardaí at Dundrum station took place in January 2019, following Ms Hand's allegation that she'd been raped in the penthouse of the Beacon Hotel the previous month. Ruth Coppinger and Natasha O'Brien. Pic: Niall Carson/PA Wire He said McGregor had told the High Court he had given gardaí a pre-prepared statement, drawn up with the help of his solicitors. During his direct evidence, McGregor told the trial that being accused of rape was 'the most scary thing I had ever gone through'. He said he 'wanted to get everything correct', and so immediately contacted a solicitor to get the best advice, and jotted down notes. He said he wanted to 'show everything that happened'. Mr Farrell said this was used as a 'hook' by Ms Hand's barrister, John Gordon, to press McGregor about what he had – and had not – told gardaí. Conor McGregor's Rolls Royce in Dublin. Pic: Tom Honan He said McGregor's comments were wrongly paraphrased by Mr Gordon to suggest he had wanted to fully cooperate with gardaí, when in fact he wanted to show everything to his solicitors. He said Mr Gordon obtained a ruling from Judge Owens, allowing him to challenge McGregor about the truth of his comments, with regard to his subsequent policy of saying 'no comment' to Garda questioning. After outlining the 100-plus times McGregor said 'no comment', Mr Gordon never asked McGregor about whether he had told the jury he intended to cooperate with gardaí, Mr Farrell complained. He said the judge later 'scrambled' to explain to the jury why they had heard the evidence. Conor McGregor. Pic: Collins Courts Mr Farrell said McGregor explained to the court that he answered 'no comment' in accordance with his legal advice, as he was 'petrified'. Mr Farrell said McGregor was also challenging the use of the word 'assault' as opposed to 'sexual assault' on the issue paper given to the jury. He said this could have left a potential for 'confusion' in the minds of some jurors as to what they were being asked to describe. Judge Isobel Kennedy noted that the High Court judge had been clear that it was 'assault by rape'. Responding, Ms Hand's barrister, Ray Boland, said it was 'an insult to the intelligence of the jury to say they did not know what the case was about'. He said the judge's charge and the evidence made it clear McGregor was accused of sexual assault or assault by rape, 'and the jury understood that'. He said the issue paper had been discussed by all sides and McGregor's legal team had agreed to its contents. He added that there was 'no ambiguity whatsoever' and no confusion. Mr Boland said that as well as the sexual assault, there was also a significant physical assault on Ms Hand, including strangulation on three occasions. He said that if the 'no comment' evidence was such a serious issue, his lawyers should have applied to have the jury discharged at the time – but they did not. He said McGregor had told the court he wanted 'every shred' of evidence to be heard by the gardaí, and Ms Hand's legal team were entitled to challenge him about that claim. Further grounds of appeal raised by McGregor, including issues concerning expert witnesses and further points concerning the judge's charge to the jury, will be decided by the court on the basis of written submissions. The Court of Appeal will today hear a challenge by McGregor's friend, James Lawrence, 35, of Rafter's Road, Drimnagh, against an order that Ms Hand does not have to pay his legal fees. The jury dismissed a claim by Ms Hand that she had also been raped by Mr Lawrence on the same day and at the same hotel. Ms Hand told the High Court the first she knew of Mr Lawrence having sex with her was when he told gardaí, following her allegation of rape against McGregor. The High Court has heard that Mr Lawrence's lawyers were paid for by McGregor.
Rhyl Journal
a day ago
- Rhyl Journal
McGregor continues appeal without fresh evidence
The Irish mixed martial arts fighter's lawyers are instead arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardai into their investigation of an incident at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor over the matter in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel. During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euro (about £206,000) in damages. She lost her case against another man, James Lawrence, who she accused of assaulting her by allegedly having sex without her consent at the same hotel. McGregor was ordered by a judge to pay Ms Hand 100,000 euro (£85,000) of the damages and 200,000 euro (£170,000) of an expected 1.3 million euro (£1.1 million) in legal costs before the appeal. He has since sought an appeal which was initially expected to include new evidence. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal in Dublin heard that McGregor would no longer be relying on additional evidence that had not been given to the initial trial for his appeal. That evidence was reported to relate to two neighbours of Ms Hand who had alleged they had seen her be assaulted by a former partner. However, McGregor's legal team said that after receiving new applications relating to the evidence to be given by pathologist Professor Jack Crane, they could no longer sustain that ground of appeal. John Gordon, SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn on that basis, adding he had only been told of the development 10 minutes earlier. He objected to the withdrawal of the ground and argued he should still be allowed to cross-examine the neighbours. He said his client had been 'put through the wringer yet again' and that the court should not permit the appellant to 'waltz in here and then they can walk away from this'. Mr Gordon said there could potentially be matters relating to perjury arising out of the developments. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, alongside Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, questioned how further submissions relating to Prof Crane could lead to the withdrawal of the appeal matter on the neighbours' evidence. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said he was applying to withdraw the matter on a 'holistic view' of the whole case and after taking instructions. The court heard it was 'unsatisfactory' that the development was being brought to the court at a late stage, but Ms Justice Kennedy permitted the withdrawing of the ground. Following the withdrawal of that application, Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, advanced the remaining four grounds of the appeal – largely relating to the right to silence and 'no comment' answers to questions during garda interviews. He raised the issue of the cross-examination of McGregor during the original trial by Mr Gordon. He said an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. Mr Farrell said that Mr Gordon had raised more than 100 'no comment' answers given by McGregor while being interviewed by gardai on the basis that it related to a position put forward by the fighter that he had been fully co-operative with gardai. Mr Farrell said this was allowed to proceed by the trial judge, with Mr Justice Alexander Owens telling Mr Gordon multiple times to get to that specific purpose of that line of questioning. However, putting forward the appeal, McGregor's counsel said this did not occur – and was in itself based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had said that he had made a comment about wanting to 'show everything' and 'get everything correct' in seeking out the 'best advice' from his solicitors – rather than saying he had been fully co-operative with gardai. He said it was 'manifestly wrong' and 'blatantly incorrect' for Mr Justice Owens to tell the jury the questioning was allowed as McGregor had raised his status as someone trying to sort out matters with the guards as best he can. Mr Farrell argued that the line of questioning was 'wholly impermissible' and was inviting someone to draw an inference that there was 'no smoke without fire' when invoking the right to silence. McGregor's counsel said the judge appeared to have 'somewhat lost control of the issue' and instead later told the jury during the charge that it could still be allowed for the different purpose of understanding background material to McGregor's answers and understanding the sequence of interviews and statements. Mr Farrell said there had been 'various vague circling' around a suggestion of whether McGregor had been co-operative or not, but it had at no point been put to him that he had been untruthful in his answers. He said the handling of the no-comment answers meant a retrial may be appropriate. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation. He argued that it was ambiguous and possible to interpret an answer that he wanted to 'show everything' that this related to gardai rather than to solicitors, and that it was 'obvious' that Mr Gordon had cross-examined him about his co-operation with the investigation. He argued, therefore, that while the judge may have got some of the details wrong, it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible. For example, he said his lack of co-operation was evidenced by how he had not handed over his phone while Ms Hand had done so. He reiterated that the judge had made it abundantly clear the jury could not draw adverse inferences from the no-comment answers. He said Mr McGregor had expressed a want to put every shred of evidence before the court. However, he said McGregor had only been 'middling co-operative' rather than fully co-operative with gardai. He said the purpose of the questioning had been followed through on, even if it was subtle or inferential. A small group of supporters stood outside the court on Tuesday morning with a banner reading 'We stand with Nikita Hand', including Socialist Party TD Ruth Coppinger and campaigner Natasha O'Brien. Ms O'Brien was among some of the crowd to enter the court to express well wishes to Ms Hand. The proceedings, including Mr Lawrence's appeal against a decision not to be awarded costs, continue on Wednesday.
