No further order on Conor McGregor following affidavits on CCTV footage

Independent

06-03-2025

Conor McGregor was the 'author of his own misfortune' by reposting comments from a man who said CCTV footage from the mixed martial artist's trial would be released, an Irish judge said, while determining that no further order was necessary.
Mr McGregor now faces an additional legal bill after previously being ordered by an Irish court not to share the CCTV footage which was used in the civil case against him.
Nikita Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, won her claim for damages against Mr McGregor after accusing the professional fighter of raping her in a Dublin hotel in December 2018.
Ms Hand, 35, was awarded damages and costs after a three-week trial last year in which the jury found him civilly liable for assault.
In January, a judge at the High Court in Dublin said the jury had 'conclusively determined' that Mr McGregor had raped Ms Hand and made an order directing the fighter not to disseminate CCTV footage used in the trial and to give back or destroy any copies he had.
It came after newspapers reported on social media, comments that claimed the footage would be released that month.
The comments were attributed to Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, who Mr Justice Alexander Owens said was a business associate of Mr McGregor.
Mr Justice Owens ordered Mr McGregor to make a sworn statement setting out in detail how he deleted the footage.
Ms Hand's lawyers applied for an injunction preventing Mr McGregor from disseminating the footage.
The footage shows Mr McGregor, Ms Hand, the second named defendant James Lawrence and Ms Hands' colleague in the car park and lift of the Beacon Hotel on the day and evening of the incident.
It shows footage of the group before and after Mr McGregor assaulted Ms Hand.
The footage was played multiple times during the trial and had been put into evidence by Mr McGregor's defence team.
On Thursday, the High Court in Dublin heard that Mr McGregor had completed multiple affidavits on the matter.
However, John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand told Mr Justice Owens that he believed Mr McGregor was 'still in breach' of the order.
The judge said the 'gist' of the order was that Mr McGregor was to delete the material he had on his own machines, return 'fobs' to his solicitor, and make efforts to retrieve the material from anyone else he gave it to – if he had done so.
Mr Gordon said it was his view that the affidavits did not fulfil all those requirements because he claimed that while Mr McGregor said he did not release the material, he had not indicated that he did not cause the material to be received by someone else.
'He hasn't said he hasn't caused anybody to receive it, which is a different thing entirely.'
Mr Justice Owens asked Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, if it was his position that his client had done everything in relation to the order, to which the barrister replied in the affirmative.
The court heard that in one of the affidavits, Mr McGregor acknowledged that he was already bound by an implied undertaking that material for a case would not be misused or disseminated.
The court heard that the affidavits contain assurances that Mr McGregor states he never had a conversation that he would improperly give the CCTV footage to Mr Rapisarda nor had he shown it to him.
However, Mr Gordon told the court that Mr McGregor's affidavits were 'simply at odds' with his decision to share Mr Rapisarda's claims to 'his 10 million followers' online.
He said Mr McGregor had therefore adopted and promoted Mr Rapisarda's rhetoric.
Mr Justice Owens said reposting the claims was perhaps 'not the wisest thing to do'.
'He is the author of his own misfortune because he gave currency to the thing.'
The judge said the matter might have otherwise 'all blown over'.
Mr Justice Owens said that in previous hearings he 'wasn't prepared to take any chances with him'.
However, following the affidavits, he said he had 'no reason to believe what he says isn't true'.
He agreed with Mr Gordon that there was a 'certain economy with the words' in the affidavits but added: 'He doesn't waffle on.'
Mr Justice Owens said all Mr McGregor was required to do was put in the affidavit, which he said contained an acknowledgement of implied undertaking not to misuse the material.
He said he had to 'rely on affidavits from people generally', adding: 'I'm not a private detective or whatever.'
The judge said that 'whatever urgency might have existed in January when this erupted' and when Mr McGregor was 'running with the ball' had seemed to 'have blown over' since.
Mr Gordon argued that that was because of the action taken by the legal team following the threat of publication.
'If we hadn't, this would have been all over the media in Italy since the middle of January, thankfully it hasn't been.'
Mr Justice Owens reiterated that Mr McGregor was the 'author of his own misfortune' and 'brought this application on himself'.
He said it was 'inevitable he was going to bring this kind of trouble' by reposting Mr Rapisarda's comments which 'gave some currency to the thing'.
However, he said he was satisfied with his explanation and that any further injunction would be 'completely unnecessary'.
He said: 'I am happy it has been nipped in the bud.'
He added: 'I don't see there is any necessity to give any further injunction or injunction at all.'
Mr Justice Owens said he would award costs relating to the CCTV matters against Mr McGregor. Mr Farrell asked for a stay and the judge told him it was open for an appeal.
Ms Hand had sought damages from James Lawrence for assault, but she lost that part of her case.
The court previously heard that Mr McGregor faces a 1.3 million euro bill for legal costs in the case, on top of damages of almost 250,000 euros which were previously awarded.