MMA star McGregor loses appeal over rape civil case in Ireland
Three judges at the Court of Appeal in Dublin dismissed all the grounds for appeal raised by McGregor, 36.
Jurors at Dublin's High Court ain November awarded damages of almost €250,000 (RM1.2 million) to Nikita Hand, 35, who alleged that McGergor raped her in a hotel in the Irish capital in 2018.
The court heard allegations that McGregor 'brutally raped and battered' Hand. The Irish sports star has insisted they had consensual sex.
However Hand lost an assault lawsuit against a second man.
Following the November ruling, McGregor was ordered to pay the entire costs of the case, estimated at around €1.5 million.
He appealed the jury's decision, seeking a re-trial of the civil case against him.
McGregor, a vocal figure in the Irish anti-immigration movement who in March met US President Donald Trump in the White House during a Saint Patrick's Day visit, was not in court during a month of appeal hearings.
His legal team argued that judicial errors occurred in the original trial, including in how he was cross-examined.
After the ruling, Hand told reporters that the appeal had 'retraumatised' her but that she can now 'finally move on and try to heal'.
'To every survivor out there, I know how hard it is, but please don't be silenced, you deserve to be heard, you also deserve justice,' she said.
Nicknamed 'The Notorious,' McGregor is one of the biggest stars in the history of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) mixed martial arts circuit, formerly holding the featherweight and lightweight titles.
The Irishman was sued in a US court in January, accused of sexual assault at an NBA game in Miami in 2023.
He has announced plans to run in Ireland's presidential election this year.
The vote to elect the country's next president — a largely ceremonial role without executive power — must be held by mid-November but he faces a number of steep hurdles to get on the ballot. — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
34 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Germany arrests 3 over alleged far-right Reichsbuerger plot
Searches were conducted at eight locations in the states of Bavaria, Saxony and Thuringia early today. (EPA Images pic) BERLIN : Three men were arrested in Bavaria today as part of an investigation into the far-right Reichsbuerger group, suspected of plotting to violently overthrow the last German government and the constitutional order, Munich prosecutors said. The Reichsbuerger (Citizens of the Reich) movement rejects modern German democracy as illegitimate and its followers argue they are citizens of a monarchy that endured after Germany's defeat in World War I, despite its formal abolition. Dozens of members, whose leaders include German aristocrat and property investor Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss, are on trial across Germany after the suspected plot was uncovered in 2022. The defendants have denied charges of terrorism and high treason. Prosecutors said they believed the men arrested today, who were not named, supported the movement or were involved in plot preparations. Specifically, they are suspected of taking part in firearms training in 2022 at a former army shooting range with members of the group who have already been arrested. 'According to the available information, these shooting exercises served to prepare for a possible attack on the German Bundestag (lower house of parliament),' prosecutors said. Searches were conducted at eight locations in the states of Bavaria, Saxony and Thuringia early today.
Barnama
4 hours ago
- Barnama
Federal Court Set Aug 13 To Deliver Verdict On AGC's Appeal In Najib's House Arrest Bid
PUTRAJAYA, Aug 7 (Bernama) -- The Federal Court has set Aug 13 to deliver its verdict on the Attorney-General's Chambers' (AGC) appeal concerning the existence of a purported additional document that permitted Datuk Seri Najib Razak to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest. The former Prime Minister's counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, confirmed with Bernama the decision date. On July 9 this year, the Federal Court's three-member bench comprising Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Federal Court judges Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Datuk Hanipah Farikullah reserved their decision in the appeal. On April 28, the Federal Court granted leave to the Attorney-General to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision concerning the alleged additional document linked to Najib. On Jan 6, in a 2-1 majority decision, the Court of Appeal remitted Najib's application on the purported existence of an additional document that allows him to serve the remainder of his six-year prison sentence under house arrest, to the High Court for determination on its merits. This decision overturned the earlier ruling of the High Court, which had dismissed Najib's application for leave to commence judicial review concerning the alleged document. Najib is currently serving a six-year custodial sentence for his conviction in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case, following the Federal Court's dismissal of both his appeal and subsequent review application. In February 2023, the Pardons Board commuted Najib's original 12-year sentence to six years and reduced the RM210 million fine to RM50 million. -- BERNAMA
Daily Express
5 hours ago
- Daily Express
Lawyer fails in appeal to restore libel judgment entered against Allianz
Lawyer fails in appeal to restore libel judgment entered against Allianz PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously upheld an appeals court decision, ruling that an email circulated by Allianz General Insurance to multiple recipients eight years ago did not defame a lawyer. Presiding over a three-member panel, Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim said S Siva Subramaniam's appeal lacked merit, leaving the apex court no reason to disturb the Court of Appeal's findings. Advertisement Dismissing the appeal with costs of RM50,000, Hasnah said there was no need for the panel to address the sole question of law framed when leave to appeal was granted. That question involved a consideration of whether the 'reasonable test' in defamation law required the court to consider evidence from the actual recipients of an alleged defamatory publication, especially if they belong to a specialised profession. SPONSORED CONTENT Also on the panel hearing the appeal were Justices Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera and Lee Swee Seng. Lawyers Cecil Abraham, Rishwant Singh and Chia Eng Yi appeared for Siva, while Terence Chan, Tan Keng Teck, Yeap Xi Jin and Oh Kei Zuin acted for the insurance firm. Advertisement Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal set aside judgment entered by the Penang High Court in Siva's favour, ruling that although the email had singled him out for mention, Allianz's defence of justification succeeded as the impugned words were true. Siva had asserted that the email had damaged his reputation by implying that he was a confidence trickster. Advertisement 'What is important is whether what was conveyed can reasonably be construed in a libellous sense. We do not think so. 'Alternatively, in the event the impugned email is defamatory, we hold that the words contained therein are true in substance, and the defence of justification succeeds,' Nantha Balan said in his 70-page judgment. He sat with Justices Nazlan Ghazali and Choo Kah Sing. In the impugned email, Allianz's senior claims manager, Frances Joycelyn Nathan, had said: 'The above lawyer (Siva) is assessing claims without the defendant's lawyer appointed.' Frances, who worked under the head of Allianz's claims division at the time, Jayapragash Amblavanar, had sent out the email dated Dec 15, 2017 to the insurance company's employees and to its panel of lawyers handling accident cases. The appeals court also ruled that the impugned email was issued by Allianz on an occasion of qualified privilege. Nantha Balan said Frances was under a duty to disclose the information to the insurance company's claims examiners and its panel of solicitors. He said any reasonable tribunal would have concluded that Frances's sole reason for sending out the impugned email was to protect the insurance company's interests by risk-managing the situation. This, he said, was particularly necessary given the plaintiff's 'tendency to serve (cause papers in a running down case) directly on the insured'. 'Hence the impugned email was in line with (Allianz's) instructions to their panel (of) lawyers to protect their interests.' The Court of Appeal ordered Siva to refund to Allianz the sum of RM371,424.66 and costs of RM52,000 previously paid to him under the High Court's judgment.
