Latest news with #legalAppeal
The Independent
19 hours ago
- The Independent
McGregor continues appeal without fresh evidence
Conor McGregor's legal team has withdrawn a bid to introduce fresh evidence in his appeal against a decision in a civil case in which a woman accused him of raping her. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, sued the mixed martial arts fighter over an incident at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. He was said to have 'brutally raped and battered' Ms Hand in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel. During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand was awarded 248,603.60 euro (about £206,000) in damages. McGregor was ordered by a judge to pay Ms Hand 100,000 euro (£85,000) of the damages and 200,000 euro (£170,000) of an expected 1.3 million euro (£1.1 million) in legal costs before the appeal, which the court heard had been done. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, lost her case against another man, James Lawrence, who she accused of assaulting her by allegedly having sex without her consent at the same hotel. McGregor has since sought an appeal which was initially expected to include new evidence. On Tuesday morning, the Court of Appeal in Dublin heard that McGregor would no longer be relying on additional evidence that had not been given to the initial trial for his appeal. That evidence was reported to relate to two neighbours of Ms Hand who had alleged they had seen her be assaulted by a former partner. However, his legal team said that after receiving new applications relating to the evidence to be given by pathologist Professor Jack Crane, they could no longer sustain that ground of appeal. John Gordon, SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn on that basis, adding he had only been told of the development 10 minutes earlier. He objected to the withdrawal of the ground and argued he should still be allowed to cross-examine the neighbours. He said his client had been 'put through the wringer yet again' and that the court should not permit the appellant to 'waltz in here and then they can walk away from this'. Mr Gordon said there could potentially be matters relating to perjury arising out of the developments. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, alongside Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, said it cannot be the case that further submissions relating to Prof Crane could solely be the reason to withdraw the appeal matter of the neighbours' evidence. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said he was applying to withdraw the matter on a 'holistic view' of the whole case and after taking instructions. Ms Justice Kennedy said it was 'unsatisfactory' that it was being brought to the court at a late stage, but permitted the withdrawing of the ground. Following the withdrawal of that application, Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, advanced the remaining four grounds of the appeal – largely relating to the right to silence and 'no comment' answers to questions during garda interviews. He raised the issue of the cross-examination of McGregor during the original trial by Mr Gordon. He said an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. Mr Farrell said that Mr Gordon had raised more than 100 'no comment' answers given by McGregor while being interviewed by gardai on the basis that it related to a position put forward by the fighter that he had been fully co-operative with gardai. Mr Farrell said this was allowed to proceed by the trial judge, with Mr Justice Alexander Owens telling Mr Gordon multiple times to get to that specific purpose of that line of questioning. However, putting forward the appeal, McGregor's counsel said this did not occur – and was in itself based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had said that he had made a comment about wanting to 'get everything correct' in seeking out the 'best advice' from his solicitors – rather than saying he had been fully co-operative with gardai. He said the plaintiff had used this to construct a 'hook' that McGregor had said he wanted to tell everything to gardai, adding: 'With respect, that's not what it says.' Mr Farrell said it was not the case that McGregor had said he had told gardai everything. He said the matter was of 'totemic importance' in the trial, and that the jury was not entitled to draw any adverse inference from the no comment answers. He said it was 'manifestly wrong' and 'blatantly incorrect' for Mr Justice Owens to tell the jury the questioning was allowed as McGregor had raised his status as someone trying to sort out matters with the guards as best he can. Mr Farrell argued that the line of questioning was 'wholly impermissible' and was inviting someone to draw an inference that there was 'no smoke without fire' when invoking the right to silence. McGregor's counsel said the judge appeared to have 'somewhat lost control of the issue' and instead later told the jury during the charge that it could still be allowed for the different purpose of understanding background material to McGregor's answers and understanding the sequence of interviews and statements. He suggested the judge was 'scrambling for some other justification' for the admission of the evidence. Mr Farrell said there had been 'various vague circling' around a suggestion of whether McGregor had been co-operative or not, but it had at no point been put to him that he had been untruthful in his answers. He likened it to jazz afficiandos having to 'listen to the notes not played' but said this was 'simply incorrect' and would have 'profound implications' in cases. Meanwhile, he also raised an 'oddity' in the issue paper considered by the jury around potential distinctions between battery and sexual assault. The hearings continue.
Free Malaysia Today
04-06-2025
- General
- Free Malaysia Today
PM to appeal High Court's dismissal of constitutional issues
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's legal team (from left) Megat Abdul Munir Megat Abdullah Rafaie, K Rajasegaran and Alan Wong at the press conference outside the Kuala Lumpur court complex. KUALA LUMPUR : Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim will file an urgent appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss his application to refer eight legal questions arising from a civil suit filed by a former research assistant. At a press conference held shortly after the decision was handed down today, Anwar's lawyer, K Rajasegaran, said they will immediately file an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's decision. Rajasegaran said the eight questions submitted are neither abstract nor academic in nature, but pertain to serious and unresolved constitutional issues. He said the issues include the protection of executive functions, the risk of politically motivated litigation, and the scope of Articles 5(1), 8(1), 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution. 'We will also be applying for a stay of trial proceedings to preserve the integrity of the appeals process and to ensure that the defendant (Anwar) is not subjected to proceedings that may ultimately be found to be unconstitutional,' he said. Earlier today, Justice Roz Mawar Rozain said the questions posed by the prime minister failed to cross the threshold set out in Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. She said none of the articles cited in the Federal Constitution, as argued by the defendant's lawyers, gave rise to any real, substantial and justiciable questions of law that require a determination by the Federal Court. Roz Mawar also said the trial of Yusoff Rawther's suit will begin at 9am on June 16 as scheduled, after rejecting an application by another member of Anwar's legal team, Alan Wong, for a stay pending appeal. In the application filed by the recently appointed solicitors, Messrs Zain Megat & Murad, Anwar said the apex court must decide whether the suit would impair the effective discharge of his executive duties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. At the hearing, lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali, representing Yusoff, called for Roz Mawar to reject the reference application, saying it has no direct bearing on the dispute before the court. He said Article 43 of the constitution did not expressly or implicitly shield a sitting prime minister from any lawsuits. Yusoff, a grandson of the late Penang consumer advocate SM Mohamed Idris, claims he was assaulted at Anwar's home in Segambut in October 2018. He is seeking general, special, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court. Anwar denies the claim and has filed a countersuit.
