Far-right campaigner uses photos of migrants to sell 'criminal identifier' spray
The platform selling Farb Gel – a 'criminal identifier' spray – appears on a website set up by failed general election candidate Derek Blighe last month.
He recently told his followers on Elon Musk's X, formerly Twitter, that the gel is a 'precursor to pepper spray legalisation in Ireland'. This is a reference to calls for pepper spray, which only gardaí are currently permitted to use, to be legalised. Mr Blighe has used images of immigrants in adverts for the spray that he has posted online. Pic: Defender 21
The Cork-based construction worker said: 'When carrying self-defence becomes normalised, they'll be forced to legislate to public demand.'
Since launching the website, Defender 21, last month, Mr Blighe has used images of immigrants in adverts for the spray that he has posted online.
The first advert he posted on the site – video stills from which we have included – shows a young woman walking down a street while being accosted by what appears to be three Irishmen. A young woman walking down a street while being accosted by what appears to be three Irishmen. Pic: Defender 21
In the video, the anti-immigration activist claims it is legal to carry Farb Gel in Ireland. He urges followers to buy the spray to protect themselves, 'because what's between you and your attacker could save your life'.
But in later posts promoting the spray, Mr Blighe uses images and videos of men from other countries. Reposting a video from Italy, which purportedly showed a Moroccan man stabbing pedestrians, Mr Blighe comments: 'Knife attacks will become more commonplace in your future. I'm going to show you the best defence for a knife attacker, but deterrence is the best option.
'Get some Farb Gel self-defence spray at Defender21.com,' he urges his followers. Pic: Defender 21
In another post containing a still CCTV image of a black man carrying a barrel, he writes: 'Get yourself some high pressure self defence spray today, and put some distance between yourself and the dangerous threat!'
Earlier that day, in a message beside a picture of the same man, he wrote: 'Naked foreign national caught on camera smashing up a dozen or more cars. Ireland needs mass deportations and remigration.'
The former Ireland First leader, who is also advertising an anti-immigration protest in Cork next month, also used a post about a car being driven into a crowd in Germany to promote his spray.
He tells followers: 'Terror attacks are becoming commonplace all over the western world. Defender 21 will offer you common sense strategies to keep you safe in today's world.' Mr Blighe reposted a video of an attack on a black man allegedly filmed in South Africa. Pic: Defender 21
In another social media message, Mr Blighe reposted a video of an attack on a black man allegedly filmed in South Africa. This post did not contain any promotion of his new product but was posted among his advertisements for Farb Gel and next month's planned anti-immigration protest.
He wrote: 'If they can do this to their own, imagine what they would do to a white person! And does that level of violence suddenly disappear when they arrive in your country?'
His website claims the Defender 21 'team' is 'passionate about your safety'.
It states: 'Personal safety is becoming more challenging in today's world. From knife crime to sexually motivated assaults, kidnapping and home invasions, traditional self-defence methods need an update. We will bring you a range of solutions to deter potential attackers and keep you safe.' Derek Blighe. Pic: File
Earlier this year, Extra.ie reported that Mr Blighe is under criminal investigation after he claimed – without providing any evidence – that a 15-year-old boy was allegedly 'gang raped' by a group of Roma men.
The move to prosecute Blighe signalled the first move by gardaí to clamp down on widespread disinformation being peddled by well-known far-right agitators online.
It came as senior sources revealed gardaí are being 'flooded' with referrals about potential breaches of the new EU Digital Services Act, whose main goal is to combat illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation.
In recent months, gardaí have been forced to issue several misinformation notices after false claims were made by far-right provocateurs online.
One of these notices was published the day after Mr Blighe posted on social media that a '15-year-old boy was allegedly gang-raped by a group of Roma Gypsy men' in Ballaghaderreen, Co. Mayo'. The subsequent Garda statement said there had been 'a significant degree of misinformation in circulation online'. Gardaí confirmed they did receive a report of an alleged assault in Ballaghaderreen, but said their probe did not involve foreign nationals.
In February, Mr Blighe told his followers that 'armed detectives' turned up at his door because the post allegedly 'incited hatred against a group of people'.
The failed general election candidate said he was invited to make a statement after a complaint was made 'about one of my alleged social media posts about an alleged rape of a child in Co. Mayo'.
Mr Blighe claimed he told gardaí he had 'no interest in making a statement late at night when my two children are inside in bed'.
He also said he was told by a detective that a file on the matter will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The far-right agitator previously told Extra.ie he would continue to post the addresses of proposed asylum centres online after several buildings linked with international protection accommodation were set on fire. He also said he wouldn't report arson threats made on his social media platforms to gardaí.
According to the Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, it is an offence to communicate threatening, abusive or insulting material that is intended, or likely to 'stir up' hatred against a group of people because of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.
The communication can be spoken, in writing, broadcast or part of a recording. However, as previously reported by Extra.ie, there have been just 50 prosecutions in the 35 years since the law came into effect.
In response to queries, Mr Blighe insisted the gel is 'a discreet self-defence product, which is completely legal in Ireland for self-defence purposes'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
21 hours ago
- Irish Times
Croatian truck driver remanded in custody over €2 million drugs haul in Cork
A truck driver has been remanded in custody charged in connection with a €2 million drugs seizure from a consignment of steel at the Port of Cork . Robert Slivar (59), of no fixed abode but from Ivanic, Croatia , was brought before a special sitting of Cork District Court on Saturday. He was charged with two offences relating to the seizure of 93 packages of cannabis grass, weighing 107kg and worth €2.1 million. Mr Slivar, who arrived in Cork by ferry from Zeebrugge in Belgium , was charged with cannabis possession and possession of cannabis for sale or supply at the Port of Cork, Ringaskiddy, on July 27th, contrary to section 3 and section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. The alleged discovery was made by a sniffer dog, customs officers and gardaí . READ MORE Det Garda Ryan Dillon, of the Cork city divisional drugs unit, gave evidence of arrest, charge and caution, telling the court Mr Slivar made no reply to either charge when they were put to him after caution outside Togher Garda station. Insp Ray Dunne said gardaí sought for Mr Slivar to be remanded in custody, but defence solicitor Diarmuid Kelleher said his client, who was assisted throughout the proceedings by a Croatian interpreter, was seeking bail. Det Garda Dillon outlined objections to bail, citing the seriousness of the charges, the alleged strength of evidence in the case and fears Mr Slivar poses a flight risk as he has no ties to Ireland. Judge John King refused bail and remanded Mr Slivar in custody to appear again at a special sitting of Cork District Court on Wednesday. The judge also requested a statement of means from the accused before deciding whether to grant free legal aid.
RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
Can Trump's threatened tariffs make Russia end its war?
First it was 50 days. But that deadline hardly made the Kremlin blink. Then, earlier this week, US President Donald Trump gave Russia a new 10-day deadline to end its three-and-half-year war in Ukraine. It was a simple ultimatum from the US: sign up to a ceasefire agreement by next Friday or face 100% tariffs. A couple of weeks ago, the White House indicated that tariffs on Russia and its trading partners could be as high as 100%. Russian exports of oil and gas account for about 60% of the country's overall exports, according to various estimates. Given that the profits of Russian oil companies are taxed heavily by the Russian state, implementing such high tariffs would deny Russia much-needed revenue for its war in Ukraine. According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a Helsinki-based thinktank, Russia has made more than €920bn on exports of fossil fuels since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Oil exports accounted for more than €630bn during that time. The Kremlin ignored Mr Trump's first 50-day ultimatum and has done the same with the new one, simply saying that the US president's comments were "noted". True to form, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not responded directly to Mr Trump's latest ultimatum to end the war. Russia's missile strikes on Ukrainian cities during this week have also indicated that Mr Trump's new deadline has not influenced Russia's war tactics. On Thursday, Russian strikes killed 31 people in Kyiv, including five children, and on Tuesday, Russian airstrikes on a prison and hospital in the Zaporizhzhia region killed 19 people. Russian forces are continuing their slow advance along the front, claiming to have captured Chasiv Yar on Thursday. Chasiv Yar is a strategically important but destroyed town in eastern Ukraine that has been fought over for 16 months. Ukraine denied that the town had been lost. If there are any moves inside the Kremlin towards agreeing a ceasefire deal by next Friday, then its leadership is hiding it very well indeed. During the week, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia had "developed an immunity" to Western sanctions after years of being sanctioned, while other senior officials aired similar views. Many analysts agree that Russia's economy has largely weathered more than three years of Western penalties - actions that included sanctions on Russian banks, freezing their assets and excluding them from using the global system for international payments. The West also set a price cap in late 2022 of $60 per barrel on Russian maritime exports of oil. However, Russia has continued to export its oil to buyers from non-sanctioning countries through its so-called 'shadow fleet'. These are mostly aging tankers with opaque maritime histories, registered in third-party countries to circumvent sanctions. The EU's latest batch of sanctions last month - the 18th so far - aims to make it harder for Russia to transport its oil around the world by lowering the price cap to $47 per barrel and blacklisting more than 100 of the shadow fleet's vessels from docking at ports across the EU. So Mr Trump's threat to impose 100% tariffs on Russia and its trading partners is a novel move to reduce the Kremlin's ability to collect oil revenues and thereby dent its war chest. "If the US comes with secondary sanctions on Russian oil, I can't see a bolder play," Ben McWilliams, an energy expert at the Bruegel thinktank in Brussels, told RTÉ News. "It's playing all their cards and that's trying to exert maximum pressure on Russia through energy," Mr McWilliams added. China buys almost half of all Russian crude oil exports, followed closely by India. Turkey and the EU both account for about 6% each of total Russian oil exports - most Russian crude oil flowing into the EU is bought by Hungary and Slovakia via pipeline. Russia also sells smaller volumes of oil to other markets including Myanmar, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Pakistan and Venezuela. The loss of revenue from those smaller markets is surmountable for Russia. However, a reduction in Chinese or Indian imports of the commodity would deny the Kremlin vital revenue for its war. Last year, China's level of Russian crude oil imports reached a record high of 108 million tonnes, according to data from China's national customs authority. Those imports account for about 20% of all Chinese oil consumption and are estimated to be worth about $62bn in 2024, based on analysis by the Centre of Eastern Studies in Warsaw and MERICS, a Berlin-based thinktank that focuses on China. In April, after the Trump administration imposed 145% tariffs on Chinese imports, Beijing hit back with high 110% tariffs of its own on US goods. A truce has been in place between Washington and Beijing since May, with the US reducing its tariffs to 30% and China to 10%. Statements from senior Chinese officials earlier this week suggest Beijing is unlikely to yield to pressure from Washington to stop buying Russian oil. "China will take energy supply measures that are right for China based on our national interests," Guo Jiakun, spokesperson for China's foreign affairs ministry, told reporters. Tariff wars have no winners. Coercion and pressuring cannot solve problems," he added. India might be more likely to reconsider reducing the amount of Russian oil it buys, if faced with 100% tariffs. On Friday, the US hit India with 25% tariffs on its imported goods - just one of many countries whose goods are to be levied by the US as part of Mr Trump's plan to, as he sees it, address US trade imbalances with other countries. The $60 price cap in late 2022 drove down the price of Russian oil exports, leading India to buy up much larger quantities of the stuff than it did before the war - it now buys more than two million barrels of oil a day from Russia, equivalent to about 2% of the world's total supply. Russian crude oil now accounts for about 35% of India's oil imports. Those purchases were valued at an estimated $50bn last year, according to India's government data, sourced by Reuters. New Delhi's reaction to the 25% levies has been to engage in trade talks. Mr Trump has also threatened to impose additional economic penalties on India for trading with Russia. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this week that India's purchase of Russian oil was "a point of irritation" so it looks like the US sees India's heavy reliance on Russian oil as a deal breaker in their overall trade talks. A number of Indian state oil refineries stopped buying Russian oil in the past week, buying more oil from Gulf States instead, an indication that American pressure is working. Reduced oil exports to India would force Russia to find substitute markets to make up for the shortfall. "Russia could still manage to get many barrels to market. You could still imagine small markets, each taking 50,000 barrels or something," Mr McWilliams said. "The question would be, at what price," he added, pointing to the cheaper price that buyers from India and China paid for Russian oil after European demand all but disappeared in 2022. If India and another big economy such as Turkey stop buying Russian oil, then buyers in other markets might have more leverage to offer lower prices for Russian crude, he argued. Turkey is the world's largest importer of Russian oil products such as diesel, heating oil and jet fuel. However, Turkey has also played a key role recently in US efforts to broker a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine. Turkish diplomats have mediated three brief face-to-face meetings between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators in Istanbul since May. Unleashing 100% tariffs on Turkey for buying Russian oil would jeopardise Turkey's eagerness to work alongside the US as a mediator. Turkey, a NATO member, is also one of the few countries that Russia views as an acceptable mediator. Mr Trump's threat of 100% tariffs is unlikely to sway Russia to stop its war immediately, nor in the weeks ahead. The Kremlin has been quite clear that it plans to weather new sanctions. Imposing high tariffs on China for trading with Russia could also set off a new, all-out trade war between Beijing and Washington. But tariffs could force India and a number of other smaller economies that buy Russian oil imports to buy elsewhere and that lost revenue would dent the Russian state's war economy in the months ahead. The big unknown factors are whether Mr Trump will follow through on his tariff threats and whether Mr Putin might yet come up with a diplomatic ploy to delay them.
RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
Legal proceedings in McGregor case not yet at an end
This week, the former MMA fighter Conor McGregor lost his appeal against a High Court jury's finding that he raped Nikita Hand. The jury at the civil trial found that he raped Ms Hand in a hotel room in December 2018 and awarded her just under €250,000 in damages. On Thursday, the Court of Appeal rejected Mr McGregor's appeal against the finding in its entirety. It also rejected an appeal by his friend, James Lawrence, against the High Court's decision to refuse him his costs. However, the legal proceedings are not at an end. Here, our Legal Affairs Correspondent Órla O'Donnell reflects on the case and looks at what could come next. On Thursday, Nikita Hand entered court number one at the Court of Appeal a few minutes before the hearing was due to start. With her, as always, was the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre's accompaniment manager, along with solicitors, Susan Hannon and David Coleman as well as some good friends. Conor McGregor was not there. But for both sides in this case, the stakes were unimaginably high. Mr McGregor has raged against the jury's verdict to his millions of social media followers since the case ended in November 2024. His US-based public relations executives began sending emails to media organisations within minutes of the verdict, claiming he had only been found "liable for assault" by the High Court jury. The PR executives claimed RTÉ News and others, were wrong to say the jury's verdict meant the jurors found he had raped Nikita Hand. They continued to send such emails sporadically in the following months. Their claim has now been firmly refuted by the Court of Appeal. Mr McGregor repeatedly accused Ms Hand of lying and laid emphasis on the fact that he had not faced any criminal charge in relation to the incident in the Beacon Hotel in December 2018. A win in his appeal would allow him to bolster his narrative that he was an innocent man facing trumped up allegations and restore his reputation. Ms Hand on the other hand, had been "put through the wringer" - a statement by her lawyers, endorsed by the Court of Appeal. She had prevailed in "one of the most hard fought trials of recent years". But her reputation had continued to be attacked by Mr McGregor, not only in his social media posts but in his tactics in this appeal. If Mr McGregor won, it would mean Nikita Hand would have to go through a high-profile civil trial all over again. And there was a further risk for her: If Mr McGregor's friend, James Lawrence, won his separate appeal over the refusal to award him his legal costs, then her award of just under €250,000 in damages could be wiped out and she could end up financially ruined. Remarkably, given what was at stake, Ms Hand remained composed as the proceedings began. Sitting bolt upright between her solicitors and her support worker from the Rape Crisis Centre, she gave a quick acknowledgement to the journalists on the opposite side of the court room. Media representatives outnumbered the lawyers in the appeal court with interest in the case from news outlets all over Ireland and further afield. The three judges emerged, presided over by experienced former criminal barrister, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy. The court's decision was given by Mr Justice Brian O'Moore. He said he would not read it all out, but it still took more than an hour to go through the issues. For Ms Hand, it was a rollercoaster. At times, the outcome looked bleak. It was only when the court made its ruling on the final issue of James Lawrence's costs, that the full extent of her vindication became clear. 'Rather tawdry episode' Mr Justice O'Moore said this was a case where the jury had to decide between Mr McGregor's description of a "rather tawdry episode" and Ms Hand's claim that a criminal offence had been committed against her. However, the first part of the court's judgment dealt not with what happened after "four people made their way to a penthouse suite in the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford" in December 2018, but with the "dramatic events" in the Court of Appeal 30 days previously. Mr Justice O'Moore dealt extensively with Mr McGregor's application to introduce "new evidence" which had "come to light" since the trial concluded. This new evidence referred to the sworn statements of Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins who at one stage had lived opposite Nikita Hand in Drimnagh. They swore affidavits about what they had seen and heard after Ms Hand returned from the Beacon Hotel on 9 December 2018. Ms O'Reilly claimed she could see into Nikita's bedroom from her bedroom and could see Nikita's boyfriend at the time, moving in a way that suggested he was assaulting her. Mr Cummins said he heard a commotion but told Ms O'Reilly it was none of their business and didn't look himself. Mr McGregor claimed this was a plausible explanation for severe bruising on Ms Hand's body. Ms Hand described their statements as lies and said she didn't wish to speculate about why they were lying. Just as the appeal was about to get underway, Mr McGregor's lawyers told the court they would be withdrawing their application to introduce this evidence. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal made it clear that they were not happy with the explanations they had been given for this decision. Mr Justice O'Moore said the affidavits were "very comprehensive and clear" and had been sworn in January this year. Neither Ms O'Reilly nor Mr Cummins said they had any difficulty remembering the incident or expressed any doubt about their evidence. And he said they would have been stress tested by Mr McGregor's lawyers, long before the eve of the appeal hearing. The judge said one explanation received by the court for the withdrawal of this evidence, related to the fact that Mr McGregor's lawyers had sought an additional expert opinion from a forensic pathologist, Professor Jack Crane, dealing with when Ms Hand's bruising could have been inflicted. Seeking to introduce new expert evidence to back up an application to introduce other new evidence was admitted by Mr McGregor's lawyers to be a "legal novelty". The first position taken by Mr McGregor's lawyers was that they had further reflected on the legal situation following written submissions on the issue from Ms Hand's lawyers, and had decided to withdraw the application. The Court of Appeal said this was "somewhat puzzling" as there was nothing new in the submissions. Mr McGregor's lawyers also suggested they were taking this step due to a lack of corroboration of Ms O'Reilly's evidence. But the court said it had never previously been suggested that the neighbours' evidence was dependent on Prof Crane's evidence being admitted. Mr Justice O'Moore said Ms O'Reilly's evidence was "crisp, clear and coherent" and the only question was whether it was true. He described this explanation as an "unsustainable position". 'Privileged matters' Mr McGregor's lawyers then claimed there were other reasons for the withdrawal of the evidence - "privileged matters" they did not intend to go into. Mr Justice O'Moore remarked that "some other factor, upon which this court does not wish to speculate, led to the abrupt decision to scuttle one of the more significant grounds of appeal". The court was deeply unimpressed with what happened. The judge said the existence of the new witnesses had "attracted no little attention" since it was first revealed earlier this year. He said the entire import of Ms O'Reilly's evidence was that Nikita Hand's testimony was incomplete and misleading. And he said Instagram messages sent by Ms O'Reilly to Mr McGregor's sister clearly accused Ms Hand of lies. The court ruled that Ms Hand had been completely vindicated in the position she took. Judge O'Moore said she robustly took the stance that Ms O'Reilly's evidence was wrong and the abandonment of the applications with "no plausible reason" could only be seen as an acknowledgement that she was correct. He said by deploying the "new evidence", the McGregor side had subjected the jury's belief that Nikita Hand had been raped to "a root and branch attack". He also said that Mr McGregor's conduct in publicly introducing evidence which fundamentally called into question the correctness of the jury's verdict and Ms Hand's testimony, only to abandon it when it was about to be tested, deserved to be marked "by a palpable sign of the court's displeasure and disapproval". He awarded Ms Hand the costs of the proceedings relating to this issue on a "legal practitioner and own client basis" against Mr McGregor. Awarding costs in this way, is significant and is not done regularly. Usually if someone is awarded their costs in legal proceedings they get them on a "party and party" basis. Surprisingly, it doesn't mean they get back all the costs they have actually accrued during the case. During the costs hearing in the High Court, Ms Hand's Senior Counsel, John Gordon suggested that someone who is successful in a court case and gets their costs on the ordinary basis gets back only about 80% of what they actually spent. Other legal sources say the true figure is actually around 60-70% of what a person spends. However awarding costs at the highest level, means someone will get back almost everything they have spent, including all the costs they have accrued with their own solicitor. The court went on to comprehensively dismiss the first of Mr McGregor's remaining grounds of appeal – the question the jury had to answer. They were asked: "Did Conor McGregor assault Nikita Ní Láimhín (Hand), yes or no?" Mr McGregor's lawyers had argued that some members of the jury may have been confused about what exactly they were being asked and may have decided he was liable for an ordinary assault instead of rape. They also submitted that the relatively low award of damages was not consistent with a finding of rape. Mr Justice O'Moore ruled the trial judge could not have been clearer in explaining that what was meant by the question was rape. He said it was "simply unreal" to suggest the jury were confused, faced with the issue framed in such a "brutally clear way", even though the damages awarded were "not generous". A more substantive ground of appeal was Mr McGregor's answers to gardaí when he was interviewed by them in connection with their investigation into Ms Hand's allegations. The trial judge allowed Mr McGregor to be cross examined about the fact that he gave a series of "no comment" answers to gardaí. The Court of Appeal found this ruling was incorrect. And it rejected a further submission that this questioning was justifiable to allow the jury to understand the background to issues in the case. But it ruled that the warnings given to the jury about this matter were sufficient to rule out the risk of an unfair trial. The court also ruled against Mr McGregor on all the remaining issues, dismissing the appeal "in its entirety". However, the issue of James Lawrence's costs remained. He argued he should have been awarded his costs as the jury had found he did not rape Ms Hand as she alleged. Ms Hand's lawyers had suggested to the court that if he were to get his costs, her award of damages would be more than wiped out. But the Court of Appeal had signalled during the hearing that this was not something they could consider. In the court's ruling, Mr Justice O'Moore said he was unimpressed by this argument. He pointed out that alleging sexual assault against Mr Lawrence was a terribly serious thing to do. Judge O'Moore also said he did not agree with the rationale of the trial judge for refusing Mr Lawrence his costs. Mr Justice Owens ruled that the jury's verdict meant they didn't believe Mr Lawrence's evidence about his own interactions with Ms Hand. The Court of Appeal said this analysis was flawed. But it found the verdict could only have meant the jury didn't believe Mr Lawrence's evidence about what happened between Ms Hand and his friend, Conor McGregor. Mr Justice O'Moore analysed Mr Lawrence's conduct, and what he said were the unusual circumstances of this case. The judge said it was "unusual" that Mr Lawrence had pleaded that he had consensual sex with Ms Hand, given that she had said she had no recollection of being sexually assaulted by him. If he had not made this plea, it would have been a possibility that the case against Mr Lawrence would have been dismissed at the end of the evidence. Plea made 'tactical' sense - judge The judge said the plea made "tactical" sense by presenting an "ostensibly coherent joint narrative" between Mr Lawrence and Mr McGregor. He also analysed the evidence given by James Lawrence on the one issue about which he said, the jury's view was not in doubt. The judge said the jury's verdict meant they believed Mr McGregor raped Nikita Hand, whereas Mr Lawrence gave evidence that the sex between Ms Hand and Mr McGregor was consensual. Judge O'Moore said Ms Hand's account must have been believed by the jury and Mr Lawrence's account must have been rejected. Therefore he said Mr Lawrence's evidence on this issue could only be regarded as untruthful. The court ruled that the giving of such evidence was a very serious matter, and was enough on its own to deprive Mr Lawrence of his costs. But it found another significant factor was the evidence of Mr McGregor that he had paid those costs for Mr Lawrence. Mr McGregor appeared to deny on social media that he ever admitted paying his friend's costs but the transcript shows that when he was asked in the witness box if he paid the fees he swore Mr Lawrence was his friend and "wouldn't have the fees for it so I believe I may have, yeah…." Mr Justice O'Moore said part of the reason for awarding costs is to make right the damage to someone who has been wrongly sued. But he said this was pointless if someone else had paid their costs for them. Arrangements between McGregor and Lawrence were 'shrouded in mystery' - judge He said the arrangements between the two men were "shrouded in mystery". But he said if Mr Lawrence didn't repay Mr McGregor he would have received a bounty of several hundred thousand euro and it would not be appropriate to enrich him by providing him with money for costs that he had never had to pay. If Mr Lawrence did repay Mr McGregor then it would mean Ms Hand would have to make a payment to a man who gave inaccurate evidence about her, and ultimately to the man who raped her. This he said should weigh heavily with the court. The judge also pointed out that having two sets of lawyers to cross examine Ms Hand, brought significant advantages to Mr McGregor. He dismissed Mr Lawrence's appeal, saying the appeal court had come to the same decision as the High Court judge, albeit for different reasons. It was at this point that Nikita Hand finally relaxed. She hugged her friends and lawyers and wiped away tears as the reality of the court's decision hit home. Outside court, holding a piece of paper in trembling hands she gave a very brief statement to the media explaining how the appeal had retraumatised her, before expressing the hope she could now finally heal. The legal proceedings are not at an end, however. Within minutes of the court's verdict, Ms Hand's lawyers lodged papers beginning an action against Ms O'Reilly, Mr Cummins and Mr McGregor for "malicious abuse of the process of the court". That case will take many months to come to court. On social media, in a flurry of posts, Mr McGregor welcomed the fact that "this is still ongoing", saying he believed the witnesses and criticising his own lawyers for not calling their evidence. He reposted a post from the AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk's X, suggesting he was "innocent" from its "analysis of the evidence", notably "excluding court rulings". He appeared to be posting from a yacht, while on holidays with his partner Dee Devlin and their children. As well as criticising Ms Hand, his lawyers and the court's decision, he published further posts suggesting he should be the next president of Ireland, describing Ms Devlin as Ireland's "first lady". Mr McGregor can attempt to challenge the appeal court's decision but he will have to get permission from the Supreme Court. That court allows appeals in the interests of justice or where there is a point of law of general public importance. The consequences of his withdrawal of the "new evidence" have also still to play out. The appeal court has referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions who may ask gardaí to investigate allegations of perjury.
