Latest news with #courtappeal
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
23-06-2025
- BreakingNews.ie
DPP will not oppose woman's appeal to overturn conviction for sexually abusing disabled children
The State has said it will not oppose an appeal by a 54-year-old woman to have her conviction for the sexual abuse and neglect of her disabled children quashed. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has also indicated that a retrial will not be sought. Advertisement The Court of Appeal heard on Monday that a psychologist who interviewed the woman accepted that alleged admissions she made may have resulted from "inducements". The psychologist carried out a number of interviews over five days, some of which included the use of a polygraph test, which formed the basis of the prosecution's case. The judge expressed reservations during the woman's second trial about the alleged admissions but felt bound by a Supreme Court decision which had found the interviews to be admissible. In its decision, the Supreme Court had found that the manner of those interviews did not compel the admissions to be excluded. Advertisement It further found that the polygraph test was not an "instrument of oppression" but a means for the psychologist to verify what was said and to "discover where the truth might lie". At the Court of Appeal on Monday, lawyers for the woman asked the court to set aside her conviction in light of the DPP's position. The woman was convicted following a retrial in July 2024 of four counts of sexual assault against three of her sons - all of whom have disabilities - between January 1st, 2005, and March 25th 2015. She was also convicted of one count of child neglect between August 3rd 2008, and March 25th 2015. Advertisement She was sentenced to eight years in prison with the final two years suspended by Judge Catherine Staines at Clonmel Circuit Court on December 17th 2024, but has remained on bail pending her appeal. The judge in the appellant's first trial ruled that admissions she had made to the psychologist were not voluntary and ought to be excluded. As they were the only evidence against the woman, the court directed the jury to acquit her of all charges. The DPP appealed this decision and in October 2022 the Court of Appeal found the admissions ought not to have been excluded. The woman subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court which upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling and directed that a retrial take place. Advertisement Launching a bid to have the woman's conviction set aside at the Court of Appeal today, defence senior counsel Dermot Cahill said the only evidence against the appellant was her admissions and the issue was whether they were voluntary. He said on two separate occasions the trial judge had expressed 'serious concerns' about the admissibility of this evidence. 'The error of the trial judge was not to follow through on her own sense of justice,' he said. Mr Cahill said the judge had 'serious misgivings' about the evidence but failed to follow up on her concerns. Advertisement He said the DPP has reviewed matters and in a letter has 'sought not to oppose an appeal against conviction'. Counsel said the Director has also indicated she will not be seeking a retrial in the case. 'On that basis I'm asking the court to set aside this conviction,' he said. Outlining the background to the case, Mr Cahill said the woman's husband and brother-in-law were charged but the DPP initially indicated they did not intend to prosecute her. However, during the course of a safeguarding assessment concerning two of her adult children, the woman made admissions to a psychologist which led the DPP to revise her decision and instigate a prosecution against his client. Mr Cahill said the woman was interviewed by the psychologist over the course of five days. He said in the retrial, great emphasis was placed on day four and day five which led the expert witness to accept that things 'may have been said that may have been regarded as inducements'. He said the manner in which polygraph tests were conducted also came into focus during the second trial. Ms Justice Tara Burns, sitting with Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Michael MacGrath, said the court understood the position the director was taking but asked counsel for the State if there was anything he had to add. Ireland Sky Ireland tells court it is not obliged to give... Read More Michael Delaney SC, for the DPP, replied: 'In defence of the trial judge and our own position, we were dealing with a fairly emphatic judgment from the Supreme Court'. He went on to say that the impact on the question of admissibility in this particular setting was 'more difficult to assess'. Ms Justice Burns said the court would reserve judgement and deliver its decision on July 14th. If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can call the national 24-hour Rape Crisis Helpline at 1800-77 8888, access text service and webchat options at or visit Rape Crisis Help.
