Latest news with #JamesLawrence
Sydney Morning Herald
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Time to scupper AUKUS and seek clearer waters
Australia is like a fish on a hook with these AUKUS submarines, except that a fish tries to detach itself and find clear water (' PM tested on US alliance ', July 14). Even decades before we are likely to see one of these subs, we have an American undersecretary for defence demanding that Australia commit to deploying the nuclear-powered boats supporting America should there be conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Time for plan B and clearer waters. Lyn Savage, Coogee Australia has a history of joining the US side in military conflicts. This is a strong display of where our allegiances lie. The US administration knows this yet chooses to demand an answer whether we would follow it into conflict with our most important trading partner as we are visiting that partner on a mission to improve trade and diplomatic ties. This deliberate act of sabotage demonstrates the deep lack of regard the US has for Australia's national interests. It is the sort of bullying that would warrant a response by calling the US ambassador to Australia in for a frank discussion. That is not an option because they haven't yet appointed an ambassador. Is that a display of disdain, or is it that they think so little of us that they haven't bothered? James Lawrence, Coogee The Trump administration, through Elbridge Colby, is saying openly what was previously unstated: the AUKUS subs will be paid for by Australia but will be an extension of the US Pacific Fleet. To accept this condition would mean surrendering our sovereignty. The response must be a resounding 'no'. John Richards, Turramurra Some members of the Australian press seem obsessed with questioning whether Anthony Albanese would sanction our involvement with the US in the possible defence of Taiwan against likely Chinese aggression. We ought to be thankful that our prime minister is cautious in making any such commitment. Everyone ought to be aware of the disastrous result of John Howard's full-on support of the military assault on Iraq, sans weapons of mass destruction. And at present, any commitment to the US should be tempered with the knowledge that it is led by an erratic individual whose focus is more on himself than on efforts to create and maintain world peace and stability. Albanese is plotting a measured, careful course, and is obviously keen to build friendship and forge permanent trading ties with our biggest partner in that area. Derrick Mason, Boorowa Kerry Packer once said you only ever get one Alan Bond, and I'm sure the Americans are saying you only ever get one Scott Morrison with the sucker punch of AUKUS. Everyone knows it will cost Australia over $1 trillion and the subs will be outdated if we ever get them. Philip Dowle, Wickham We're flying solo If Australia was depending on the AUKUS agreement to ensure our security, we have been sadly mistaken. We have already seen the condition-ridden approach of the US to AUKUS as being hardly beneficial to our defence capability, and now George Brandis (' Asia-Pacific no longer a focus for UK ', July 14) contends that the UK has shifted its emphasis, understandably, to being Europe-centric. This makes it clear that we are fundamentally on our own, however frightening that may be, with our former allies more intent on their interests on the other side of the world. Thus, it is more imperative that our relations with China remain positive, and this makes Albanese's present excursion to China more important than ever. Paul Keating's contention that our relations in the Asian sector were of prime importance was correct. Max Redmayne, Drummoyne Why our late and unlamented Coalition government ever thought the UK would put serious resources into defence in our part of the world has long been a mystery. So it's no surprise that the Asia-Pacific region is of marginal interest to the Starmer government. Much better to have joined with the French, who actually have a Pacific presence. AFUS, anyone? Greg Baker, Fitzroy Falls Missed opportunity The letter from your correspondent (Letters, July 14) cries out for a response. His suggestion that an Indigenous Voice 'would introduce racism into the parliament' is complete and utter nonsense. Given the entrenched disadvantage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, seen in and through government systems and practices since colonisation, I think we can safely say that his point is moot, to say the least. The No vote was, sadly, a missed opportunity for parliament to listen to an advisory body whose stated purpose was to help bring about a more equitable and just future for our Indigenous peoples – something that successive governments themselves, via their Closing the Gap strategies, have said and shown is necessary. I am tired of seeing and hearing such narrow, ignorant and disingenuous views of both our nation's history and of the Voice proposal: 'trickery' it was not. As Thomas Mayo reminds us, speaking about Indigenous history, 'We were once remarkably peaceful and happy, and we want that for our children today'. Is that too much to ask? Kerrie Wehbe, Blacktown The frustration concerning racist sentiment against Indigenous people shown by your correspondent is palpable, but I feel his comments that trivialise those who, for example, attend NAIDOC events are off the mark. Change does not generally come about in the style of the French Revolution. It comes about by thousands of individuals showing their support for a cause in any way they can, no matter how small, day after day after day. No one's denying we have a long way to go, but we should also not deny that overall support for Aboriginal people and their aspirations is light years ahead of where it was 50 years ago. Ross MacPherson, Seaforth The failure of the 2023 constitutional recognition referendum was disappointing enough without yet another attempt to rewrite its history. There were five years of consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples throughout Australia, leading to the 2017 Uluru Convention, which delivered the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The statement calls for 'Constitutional reforms to empower our people'. More specifically, 'We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution'. The government decided to hold a referendum in 2023 to implement this request. There were not 'two separate issues'. Indeed, during this consultation process, the powerless symbolic recognition option favoured by your correspondent was one of several options rejected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and by conservative constitutional lawyers. Symbolic recognition had been comprehensively rejected by the voters in the 1999 constitutional preamble referendum. In the 1967 referendum, voters overwhelmingly approved constitutional changes to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the same rights as those enjoyed by all other Australians. In 2023, voters refused to include a powerful specific Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution. David Hind, North Sydney Racism is a failure to love our neighbour as ourselves. Racism is a failure of compassion. Such failure separates us from each other and violates our shared humanity. Racism makes slaves of us all. Mark Porter, New Lambton Rights, wrongs and the RBA Consternation about leaving interest rates on hold has been grist for the media mill (' If RBA is misguided on rates, we'll suffer from its fumbling ', July 14). A broader perspective would lament the lingering political and cultural quagmire driven by concern for housing borrowers. Housing borrowers were disadvantaged by the reluctance to increase taxes to manage demand. That left interest rate increases as the default option to control inflation. Conversely, while existing housing borrowers are savouring capital gains, new borrowers, paying higher prices, will be joining the queue looking for empathy. Savers funding housing borrowers get short shrift in quagmire-politics. When the inflation target is 2.5 per cent, and marginal tax rates are as high as 50 per cent, a cash rate of 5 per cent converts to 'zero' – and a net loss as things stand. On this reckoning, at least holding interest rates steady is more appropriate than rate reductions likely to exacerbate the crisis in housing affordability. Peter Mair, Dee Why I have already woken up to the fact that there is 'a better way to manage the strength of demand'. The RBA has reverted to direct control of interest rates, a practice that that was discredited and dumped last century. Don't play the poor mortgagors card. Paying back has always been difficult, but the rewards are great – just ask renters and the homeless. No, the fact is the RBA is impotent. A move in the cash rate is a two-edged sword because a reduction, say, is simply a transfer of spending power from lenders to borrowers. For all we know, that could lead to a reduction in aggregate spending at present. Your mortgagors will gleefully pay down their loans and, as surveys have suggested, increase spending hardly at all. From Gittins' previous writings, I get the impression that he too sees that stabilisation policy needs to be left to fiscal policy, which has a much more direct and measurable effect on the relevant targets – employment and inflation. Mike Bush, Port Macquarie I'd feel more comfortable about the RBA getting monetary policy settings correct if Ross Gittins were on the board. Mike Kenneally, Manly To be frank In relation to the upcoming productivity roundtable, the Commonwealth Bank does not want corporate tax rates to be reduced ('If life's a box of chocolates, tax reform takes the cake', July 14). But wait; a lower tax rate means a lower franking credit for its shareholders and more tax they might have to pay. Maybe the bank is also keeping one eye on its stratospheric share price. Michael Blissenden, Dural Debacle, baby, debacle Nick O'Malley (' Big toxic bill will cost US, and us all, ' July 14) is right to point to the potentially ruinous economic consequences of Trump's laughably misnamed big, beautiful bill. It should more realistically be seen as the belligerent belting of brother democracies. This is especially so in terms of its impact on climate change policy; the less we do and the more we procrastinate about this existential threat to human existence, the more we will pay. Though we cannot escape all the adverse effects of Trump's poisonous policies, we must redouble our own efforts to rid ourselves of fossil fuel dependence. Paying to do so now is essential. Ron Sinclair, Windradyne With Donald Trump urging American companies to 'drill, baby, drill', the United States and China are now headed in opposite directions regarding energy. China is electrifying its economy and installing renewables at unprecedented speed. The US, by contrast, is betting the house on energy sources that have been around for over a century and cannot benefit from technical innovation. Unfortunately, the economics do not favour the US model, meaning that American policy is setting China up to be the dominant power in coming decades. While this might be good for the planet, as China's emissions are now heading down, it is definitely not good for nations that depend on the United States for leadership and defence. The US urgently needs to change direction. It may never catch up. Ken Enderby, Concord Fridge on wheels I hope that commuters from the Blue Mountains enjoy the new trains after waiting so long (' Mountains commuters in line for new trains ', July 14). They are much better, but they are cold. The air conditioning seems to have only one switch, and on a cold winter's morning it can be unpleasant. Transport for NSW says you need to tell them which carriage number, as it may be a solenoid or something isolated, but a recent Saturday morning radio discussion about the trains had a number of people making the same complaint. The wider doors are very useful compared to the narrow ones but on a cold blustery day one dreads doors opening as the whole carriage can suffer. And why bother with those stupid little seats at the top of the stairs which simply cannot accommodate anyone bigger than four years old? Just put in shelves for the power outlets. You still get passengers loudly noting that he seats are facing 'the wrong way', of course. Tony Sullivan, Adamstown Heights Rescue the Roxy How the Roxy (' Historic theatre sits unloved for more than a decade ', July 14), only the second cinema in NSW to be added to the National Trust Register, could have been sold off privately and not supported and maintained by successive state governments is beyond comprehension. So little now remains of the history of Parramatta that it is soul-less as Sydney's 'second city'. George Zivkovic, Northmead Another building suffering dire neglect is the small 1920s Moorish-style service station on the corner of Princes Highway and Canal Rd, St Peters. After the government spending squillions of dollars on the M8, nothing has been done to resurrect this small gem or turn it into something useful. John Swanton, Coogee Fuel folly It is pure folly to think that EV trucks will ever be used in Australia's remote places (' Road ahead for electric big trucks a long-haul ', July 14). There isn't any grid electricity where they go. David Sayers, Gwandalan
The Independent
02-07-2025
- The Independent
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.
BreakingNews.ie
02-07-2025
- BreakingNews.ie
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, the Court of Appeal 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. Advertisement 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. Conor McGregor outside the High Court in Dublin in 2024 (Brian Lawless/PA) Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded €248,603.60 in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about €1.3 million in legal costs. The jury did not find that Mr Lawrence had assaulted her during the same series of incidents at the hotel. Advertisement 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. Nikita Hand won her civil case against the mixed martial arts fighter (Niall Carson/PA) Meanwhile, McGregor's lawyers are arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardaí 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. Advertisement 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. Advertisement 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. Advertisement 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 continue to consider other matters relating to the appeals.
Irish Times
02-07-2025
- Irish Times
Court to refer withdrawn material in Conor McGregor appeal for consideration of possible perjury
The Court of Appeal is to refer, for consideration of possible perjury, material related to a fresh evidence sought to be admitted on behalf of Conor McGregor, but later withdrawn. The material was related to his appeal against a High Court civil jury finding in favour of Nikita Hand, who alleged he raped her in a Dublin hotel. The evidence, in which Ms Hand's neighbour claimed she witnessed a physical altercation between Ms Hand and her then partner within hours of the encounter between Ms Hand and Mr McGregor in the Beacon hotel was dramatically withdrawn by his side at the outset of his appeal on Tuesday. Ms Hand had described the evidence as 'lies' and said Stephen Redmond never assaulted her during their relationship. Mr McGregor's appeal over the November 2024 jury finding concluded on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the court heard a linked appeal by James Lawrence (36), Rafter's Road, Drimnagh, over a refusal to award him costs against Ms Hand following the jury decision he had not assaulted her after Mr McGregor left the hotel on December 9th, 2018. Judgment on both appeals will be given on a later date. READ MORE After Mr Lawrence's appeal concluded, the court rose to allow John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, inform Mr McGregor's side about his intended address on the withdrawn evidence. When it returned, Mark Mulholland KC, for Mr McGregor, said his side had been given documents Ms Hand's side had intended to use in cross-examining her neighbour, Samantha O'Reilly. Mr Gordon's application related mainly to those materials against a backdrop of suggesting a criminal investigation should follow on Ms O'Reilly's intended evidence, counsel said. This was about 'getting on the record', and in the media under the cloak of privilege, points Mr Gordon intended to make and to establish he was correct in the assertions he made. This was not appropriate and, if Ms Hand wished to take this matter further, there were other means to do so, he said. Mr Gordon said Mr Mulholland had 'again pre-empted' him and argued the court had a wide discretion and inherent jurisdiction concerning how to deal with withdrawal of evidence. Mr Justice Brian O'Moore said he was 'taking to heart' Mr Mulholland's comment this could involve material that, if deployed in the application, could prejudice a possible criminal prosecution. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the court would view the material in chambers. It was also provided with correspondence from Mr McGregor's solicitors to consider. When the court resumed, Mr Gordon asked it to add costs terms to the withdrawal of the evidence and refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). He asked for orders awarding costs, on the highest solicitor client level, to his side related to the application to adduce and withdraw the evidence. The fresh evidence was publicly disseminated and published widely, he said. It was not correct for Mr McGregor's side to say they had not suggested Ms Hand was telling lies because, in an email by Ms O'Reilly to Mr McGregor's solicitors, there was a 'direct accusation' against Ms Hand. The fresh evidence application was not just to adduce further evidence but to undermine Ms Hand's reputation pending the hearing of the appeal, he said. Ms Hand had sworn an affidavit calling the evidence out as lies and was entitled to her opportunity to call that out in this court but the withdrawal prevented her throwing out the 'highly disparaging and unfair' criticisms of her. The court has power to refer the matter to the DPP and should do so because that would show the court's concern about the apparent abuse of its own processes, counsel said. In response, Mr Mulholland said the costs issues should await the outcome of the appeal. Mr Gordon's referral application was a matter for the court, he added. In its ruling at 2pm, Ms Justice Kennedy said the court would refer the matter to the DPP and would inform the parties what material it intended to refer in that regard. She said costs orders would be made following the court's judgment on the appeal. Ms Hand, accompanied by her partner Gary Foy and mother Deborah, was in court for the appeal hearing. Mr McGregor appealed a civil jury's finding last November that he assaulted Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel, Sanydford, Dublin, on December 9th, 2018. Ms Hand was awarded €250,000 damages and got her legal costs, estimated around €1.3 million, against Mr McGregor. The 36-year-old mother of one told the jury Mr McGregor raped her after she and a friend went with him and his friend Mr Lawrence to the hotel. She said she told Mr McGregor she did not want to have intercourse with him, he 'would not take no for an answer', she was wearing a tampon at the time and would not have sex during her period. Mr McGregor denied rape and said he and Ms Hand had 'fully consensual' and 'vigorous', 'sex. He was shocked when later shown photos of bruising on Ms Hand, had not caused them and there was no tampon, he said. Ms Hand denied Mr Lawrence's claim she had consensual sex with him after Mr McGregor left the hotel. 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 or civil wrong of assault. The jury found Mr McGregor assaulted Ms Hand and Mr Lawrence had not assaulted her. For his appeal, Mr McGregor claimed fresh evidence came into his possession after the case which provided a 'plausible' explanation for bruising on Ms Hand's body noted by a doctor who examined her on December 10th 2018. That included sworn claims by Samantha O'Reilly that, from a bedroom in her house, she observed a physical row between Ms Hand and her then partner Stephen Redmond at their home on the night of December 9/10th 2018. At the outset of Mr McGregor's appeal on Tuesday, his lawyers said, arising from a consideration of case law and reservations expressed by the court about the admissibility of other evidence from former Northern Ireland State Pathologist Dr Jack Crane, they were withdrawing their applications to adduce that evidence. Mr Mulholland said Dr Crane's evidence was considered necessary to corroborate the neighbours' evidence. Mr Gordon said he was 'shocked', Ms Hand had been 'put through the wringer yet again' and had answered the claims by saying they were 'lies', which he said was now conceded, and indicated there might be an issue about referring matters to the DPP for consideration of perjury. Mr McGregor's appeal proceeded with submissions from the sides whether or not there were errors of law in how Mr Gordon and the trial judge approached Mr McGregor's 'no comment' responses when interviewed by gardai after giving them a statement in response to Ms Hand's claim of rape. A second ground concerned 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. In submissions on Mr Lawrence's costs appeal, John Fitzgerald SC said the trial judge had, in his costs ruling, erred in law and in principle in interpreting the jury verdict as a finding by the jury there was no sex at all between Ms Hand and Mr Lawrence and that was why they decided he had not assaulted her. The only reasonable interpretation of the jury not awarding punitive damages was they did not accept there was collusion between Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence relating to Ms Hand's claim, he said. The normal rule, that costs go to the winning party, should apply in light of the jury's finding Mr Lawrence has not assaulted Ms Hand. Opposing Mr Lawrence's appeal, Ray Boland SC said there was no error in the trial judge's decision not to award costs to Mr Lawrence against Ms Hand. In exercising his discretion on costs, the trial judge was entitled to take into account that Mr Lawrence did not incur any costs because Mr McGregor paid his legal fees, counsel said. If costs were awarded to Mr Lawrence against Ms Hand, the court could take it they would be 'snaffled' by Mr McGregor and exceed her award of €250,000 damages. Ms Justice Kennedy told counsel that saying the court should look at the consequences of any order it might make was a difficult argument to make.
Irish Times
02-07-2025
- Irish Times
Nikita Hand's lawyers to address Conor McGregor's withdrawal of ‘fresh evidence' in appeal over civil rape case
Lawyers for Nikita Hand are to address the Court of Appeal concerning Conor McGregor's withdrawal of fresh evidence in his appeal against a High Court civil jury finding in her favour. She had alleged he raped her in a Dublin hotel. John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, told the Court of Appeal on Wednesday he wanted to address the court regarding the withdrawal of an application to adduce fresh evidence from neighbours of Ms Hand over an alleged altercation between Ms Hand and her then partner within hours of Ms Hand's encounter with Mr McGregor on December 9th, 2018. Ms Hand had described the claims in the fresh evidence as lies and said her then partner, Stephen Redmond, had never assaulted her during their relationship. READ MORE On Tuesday, Mr Gordon said the withdrawal of the application amounted to conceding Ms Hand's description and he raised the possibility of seeking a referral to the DPP to consider possible perjury. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, presiding, said they would hear Mr Gordon at the conclusion of the hearing of a linked appeal by Mr McGregor's friend James Lawrence. Submissions in Mr McGregor's appeal had concluded before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday and the court is hearing submissions on Wednesday morning in the appeal by Mr Lawrence, whom the jury found did not assault Ms Hand in Dublin's Beacon Hotel, against a refusal to award him costs against her. Those submissions, by John FitzGerald SC, are expected to conclude by lunchtime. Mr Fitzgerald submitted Mr Lawrence was entitled to his costs on grounds including the normal costs rule, that costs go to the winning party. The jury had found his client had not assaulted Ms Hand, he said. Ms Hand, accompanied by her partner Gary Foy and mother Deborah, is back in court for the appeal. Mr McGregor has appealed a civil jury's finding last November that he assaulted Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel, Sandyford, Dublin, on December 9th, 2018. Ms Hand was awarded €250,000 damages and got her legal costs against Mr McGregor. The 36-year-old mother of one told the jury Mr McGregor raped her after she and a friend went with him and Mr Lawrence to the hotel. She said she told Mr McGregor she did not want to have sexual intercourse with him, he 'would not take no for an answer', she was wearing a tampon at the time and would not have sex during her period. Mr McGregor denied rape and said he and Ms Hand had 'fully consensual' and 'vigorous' sex. He said he was shocked when later shown photos of bruising on Ms Hand, that he had not caused them and there was no tampon. Ms Hand denied Mr Lawrence's separate claim she had consensual sex with him after Mr McGregor left the hotel, saying she had no memory of having sex with him. 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 or civil wrong of assault. The jury found Mr McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand and that Mr Lawrence (35), of Rafter's Road, Drimnagh, had not assaulted her. Mr McGregor claimed fresh evidence came into his possession after the case which provided a 'plausible' explanation for bruising on Ms Hand's body. That included sworn claims by Samantha O'Reilly, a former neighbour of Ms Hand in Drimnagh, that, from a bedroom in her house, she observed a physical row between Ms Hand and her then partner Stephen Redmond at their home on the night of December 9th/10th, 2018. Ms Hand described the claims by Ms O'Reilly, and claims by Ms O'Reilly's partner Steven Cummins that he heard screaming from Ms Hand's home on the night in question as 'lies' and said Mr Redmond never assaulted her at any time in their relationship. At the outset of Mr McGregor's appeal on Tuesday, his lawyers said they were withdrawing their applications to adduce that evidence. Mr Gordon, for Ms Hand, said he was 'shocked' at the withdrawal application. He said Ms Hand had been 'put through the wringer yet again' and had answered the claims by saying they were 'lies', which he said was now conceded. There might be an issue about referring matters to the DPP for consideration of perjury proceedings, he added. The appeal proceeded with submissions from Remy Farrell SC focused on two key grounds. The first was alleged errors of law in how Mr Gordon and the trial judge approached Mr McGregor's 'no comment' responses, made when interviewed by gardaí after giving them a statement in response to Ms Hand's claim of rape. The trial judge also erred in directing the jury be asked to answer whether or not Mr McGregor 'assaulted' Ms Hand rather than 'sexually assaulted' her, Mr Farrell submitted. Opposing the appeal for Ms Hand, Ray Boland SC argued Mr McGregor had 'put himself out there as trying to be as co-operative with the gardaí as possible' and in that context his no comment responses were relevant. On the second issue, counsel said this was 'assault by rape' attendant on physical assault and it was 'an insult to the intelligence of the jury to suggest they did not know what the case was about'.
