Nikita Hand suing Conor McGregor again, as well as withdrawn witnesses

Irish Daily Mirror

6 days ago

Nikita Hand is once again suing Conor McGregor - this time for his alleged abuse of the courts process.
The Irish Mirror understands that Ms Hand is suing McGregor - as well as couple Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins, who were spectacularly withdrawn as witnesses at the final moment of the fighter's appeal.
In a comment to The Irish Mirror, Nikita's solicitors stated: "We confirm that further proceedings have been issued in the High Court and a Statement of claims has been prepared and will be served imminently."
The Irish Mirror understands the case against McGregor, Ms O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins are for damages for malicious abuse of the process of the court by the Defendants, and each of them, their respective servants and/or agents. She is suing for aggravated and punitive damages as well as costs.
The papers were lodged for Ms Hand's new High Court case yesterday - following his failure to appeal a civil jury finding that he raped her.
It comes as we revealed he is set to pay Ms Hand over €2m in legal costs - after three Judges of the Court of Appeal upheld a finding by a jury that he assaulted Ms Hand - whereby they agreed that he raped her in the Beacon Hotel in south Dublin in December 2018.
The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week
Those costs are set to be paid to Nikita as is the balance of a €250,000 in damages awarded to her by the jury at the end of the High Court case last November.
It comes as brave Nikita spoke to the media outside the Four Courts in Dublin following the bombshell ruling on Thursday, in which she said she had been "re-traumatised" by the famous fighter's appeal. "I'm deeply grateful for everyone who supported me, believed in me and stood by my side during this long and painful journey.
"This appeal has retraumatised me over and over again.
"Being forced to relive it, what has happened has had a huge impact on me. For every survivor out there, I know how hard it is but please don't be silent, you deserve to be heard, you also deserve justice. Today I can finally move on and try to heal. Thank you," she said.
Rejecting McGregor and James Lawrence's appeal, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore outlined from the outset why Nikita should be awarded her costs, and spoke in detail of the "vindication" she received by being believed by the jury. "Ms. Hand had prevailed in one of the most hard-fought trials of recent years. A great deal of her vindication must have been found not only in the award of damages, but in the fact that the jury believed her," he said. Nikita Hand speaking to the media after attending the Court of Appeal (Image: SAM BOAL/COLLINS PHOTOS)
Later in rejecting James Lawrence's appeal for his costs - "a bounty of several hundred thousand euro" to be paid, would effectively mean Ms Hand would end up having to pay McGregor - who was footing his bill anyway. "It would mean that, should Mr. Lawrence be awarded some or all of his costs, Ms. Hand would be making a payment initially to an individual who gave inaccurate evidence against her, and ultimately to the man who raped her. Such a circumstance should weigh heavily with this Court," he said.
The Judge also heavily criticised McGregor for his conduct and attempt to introduce 'new evidence' in the case in the form of couple Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins - who claimed to have witnessed Ms Hand possibly being assaulted by her ex partner - only to sensationally withdraw the sworn affidavits on the opening of the appeal. The issue has been referred by the Judges to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to decide whether any perjury was committed. Conor McGregor and partner Dee Devlin leave the High Court in November
Likening the attempt to an "attack" on the jury's finding he said: "The jury's belief that she had been raped was subject to a root and branch attack in this appeal by the deploying of this 'new evidence' by the McGregor side. None of the many factors identified by counsel in explaining the late withdrawal of this 'new evidence' amounted to anything that could not have been done months ago.
"The conduct of Mr. McGregor, in publicly introducing evidence which fundamentally called into question the correctness of the jury's verdict and the testimony of Ms. Hand which had led to it, only to abandon that evidence when it was about to be tested is behaviour which deserves to be marked by a palpable sign of the court's displeasure and disapproval," Judge O'Moore added. "I would therefore award Ms. Hand her costs of the "new evidence" motions on a legal practitioner and own client basis against Mr. McGregor."
The Judge outlined in detail how Counsel for McGregor sought to withdraw the evidence at the final hour - but surmised that there must be another reason why it was. "Some other factor, upon which this court does not wish to speculate, led to the abrupt decision to scuttle one of the more significant (and certainly the most public) grounds of appeal advanced on behalf of Mr. McGregor," he said.
The three Judges - consisting of Judge O'Moore, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy and Mr Justice Michael MacGrath rejected all grounds of McGregor's appeal - including that his garda interviews shouldn't have been admitted into evidence and that the issue paper given to the jury should have specified sexual assault and not simply 'assault.' On that issue the Judges were clear - in that the jury found McGregor assaulted Ms Hand on the basis of their full understanding that the assault was a rape.
"The case alleged by the Respondent was that she had been raped by the Appellant," Judgement states. Judge O'Moore stated he did not think that the trial Judge - Mr Justice Alexander Owens could have been clearer in explaining' that the issue they were deciding upon was one of rape. "It is simply unreal to suggest that, faced with the issue framed in such a brutally clear way by the trial judge, any member of the jury then became confused about the meaning of question 1 on the Issue Paper," he went on to say. He also rejected McGregor's appeal that the jury were confused about what they were deciding upon based on the award.
Judge O'Moore said the "thorough and comprehensive way in which the trial judge charged the jury and in particular the repeated reference to the assault in question 1 being nothing other than the alleged rape of Ms. Hand means that no member of the jury could have been in any doubt about what question 1 on the Issue Paper meant." (Image: SAM BOAL/COLLINS PHOTOS)
Rejecting McGregor's appeal that his 'no comment' answers to gardai which were brought up during cross examination warranted an unfair trial, Judge O'Moore stated that while he did not agree with how the trial Judge initially ruled on the matter, he did go on to properly inform the jury. Judge O'Moore stated he was "satisfied" that any potential prejudice to McGregor "is simply not established" in this case and that the trial Judge was "astute to ensure that this evidence could not be seen by the jury as suggestive or supportive of a claim of rape by Ms. Hand."
He further stated that Judge Owens "did quite enough" to avoid adverse effects put forward by McGregor in his appeal." A real risk of an unfair trial has not been demonstrated by Mr. McGregor,' he said.
The judgement also rejected McGregor's claim of alleged failures in the trial Judge's charge to the jury. Judge O'Moore said Mr Justice Owens in fact 'spent a great deal of time' charging the jury on individual items of evidence in the case.
Co-defendant James Lawrence - who the jury found did not rape Ms Hand, was seeking for the Court of Appeal to reverse a decision by the trial judge not to award him damages - due to the fact that McGregor was paying his costs.
In finding against Lawrence, Mr Justice O'Moore spoke of the "arrangement" between the UFC fighter and him, which he said is "shrouded in mystery." Supporters of Nikita hand at the Court of Appeal in Dublin this morning
"One possibility, as I have mentioned, is that Mr. Lawrence does not have to (or will not voluntarily) repay Mr. McGregor. If that is the case, it would simply not be appropriate to enrich Mr. Lawrence by providing him with a sum of money in respect of costs that he has never had to pay," he said.
He went on to state that it appeared from McGregor's evidence that James Lawrence could not from his own resources "have engaged a full legal team at all."
"Mr. McGregor's funding of Mr. Lawrence's costs may, therefore, have been money well spent," he said.
Sign up to the Irish Mirror's Courts and Crime newsletter here and get breaking crime updates and news from the courts direct to your inbox.