THE DPP is to consider material surrounding the withdrawal of “fresh evidence” which was to be introduced by Conor McGregor as part of his appeal against a jury’s verdict that he is civilly liable for sexually assaulting Nikita Hand.
The former hairdresser was awarded nearly €250,000 last November after she sued the MMA star for an alleged attack in the Beacon Hotel in December 2018.
Following the three-week case, Ms Hand’s former neighbours Samantha O’Reilly and Steven Cummins swore affidavits that they saw her and and her ex-partner Stephen Redmond arguing outside their house in Drimnagh on the night of the alleged assault by the fighter.
Ms O’Reilly said: “I could see Ste’s arms moving up and down as if he was hitting Nikita” and “moving his hips in a way that indicated to me that he was kicking her”.
But as Nikita was on the ground she could not see “any blows land on her”.
This was put forward as an alternative theory as to how Ms Hand sustained bruising on her body, which was photographed by Gardai on December 11 – two days after the alleged rape by McGregor.
When the appeal began on Tuesday, Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said they were withdrawing this ground of appeal because it was “unsustainable”.
Mr Mulholland said he was doing so in light of case law and reservations expressed by the court which indicated that other evidence his side wanted to adduce from a former Northern Ireland State Pathologist, Professor Jack Crane, was inadmissible.
Mr Mulholland told the court that Professor Crane’s evidence was considered necessary to corroborate the evidence of Ms O’Reilly and Mr Cummins
John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, described the manner of the withdrawal as “totally unacceptable”.
He told the three-judge court: “My client has been put through the wringer yet again. She has answered in her affidavit that it was all lies. That has now been conceded.
“Now they waltz in here and think they can walk away from this.”
CROSS-EXAMINE WANTED
Mr Gordon said he should be allowed to cross-examine Ms O’Reilly, Mr Cummins and McGregor’s solicitor Michael Staines.
He added: “I should be allowed to refer the matter for perjury to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
“Mr McGregor should be referred for subornation of perjury. An apology would be a start.”
Subornation of perjury is when a person induces another person to lie under oath.
MATTER REFERRED TO DPP
Mr Gordon handed in documentation to the court that he intended to cross-examine Ms O’Reilly and Mr Cummins and made more submissions today at the conclusion of the appeal.
After considering the material, presiding judge Ms Isobel Kennedy said she would refer the matter to the DPP and would notify the parties about the documentation they intended to refer.
She added that they would reserve their judgment on McGregor’s appeal, along with an appeal by his friend James Lawrence against the decision not to award him costs even though the jury found he did not assault Ms Hand.
Ms Justice Kennedy said they would let the parties know when it was ready.
‘UNDERMINE HER REPUTATION’
Earlier, Mr Gordon said Ms Hand was accused of lying during last year’s High Court case to “undermine her reputation”.
He called for a criminal investigation into the manner in which Ms O’Reilly and Mr Cummins claimed she was assaulted by Mr Redmond on the night she alleged she was raped by McGregor.
He told the three-judge court that they had the jurisdiction to recommend a criminal investigation because of the “disparaging and unfair criticisms” of his client.
He told the court: “If the court looks at the emails sent by Ms O’Reilly, there’s a direct accusation accusing my client of lying.
‘IT WAS LIES’
“The application was made to undermine my client’s reputation. My client called out this and said it was lies.
“She was entitled to her opportunity to call that out in court and they withdrew the evidence and so prevented her from calling out what was a series of highly disparaging and unfair criticisms of my client.”
Mr Gordon says he believes the court is entitled to add terms to the application to withdraw the appeal ground made by McGregor’s lawyers the previous day.
He added that the new evidence from Ms O’Reilly and Mr Cummins was “made on publicly disseminated material made some months ago and published widely in the media”.
‘START AND END OF THE MATTER’
Counsel added that he had the right to put these claims to the witnesses as part of the appeal.
Mr Mulholland responded: “It relates to materials Mr Gordon wished to put to Samantha O’Reilly yesterday. Mr Gordon was suggesting a criminal investigation should follow on foot of her intended evidence.
“These are not discontinuation proceedings and if that’s the veil which this be done that should be the start and end of the matter.
“If as Mr Gordon raised yesterday there should be a criminal investigation, these matters should be dealt with in that forum.”
Earlier, lawyers for McGregor’s friend James Lawrence, who the jury found had not raped Ms Hand, made submissions to the court that costs should not have been made against him because he won his case.
Neither McGregor or Lawrence were in court for the appeal, but Nikita Hand was present, supported by her partner Gary Foy and other family members.
