Lawyers for Nikita Hand have called for the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions to examine affidavits containing accusations against their client, after Conor McGregor withdrew them from his appeal. The former hairdresser successfully sued the mixed martial arts fighter in a civil court over allegations he "brutally raped and battered" her at a Dublin hotel in December 2018.
Hand, 35, was awarded €248,603.60 (about £206,000) in damages after a jury found McGregor civilly liable for assault following a three-week case at Dublin's High Court last November. McGregor had told the court he had consensual sex with Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin.
Appeal evidence withdrawn dramatically
On Tuesday, McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew a ground of appeal that would have introduced new evidence from two former neighbours of Hand. The affidavits claimed she had been assaulted by her then-partner around the same time as the hotel incident.
John Gordon SC, representing Hand, said it was "frankly not appropriate" for the ground to be withdrawn at such a late stage. He told the court his client had been "put through the wringer yet again" by accusations she had denied.
Court asked to refer matters
On Wednesday, Gordon asked the Court of Appeal to use its jurisdiction to refer the matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He said the application regarding the affidavits had been made "some months ago" and the material had been "published widely".
Gordon described the accusations as "highly disparaging and unfair criticisms" that included claims his client had been lying. He argued the application was designed not just to produce further evidence, but also to "undermine my client's reputation".
Defence responds to allegations
Mark Mulholland KC, representing McGregor, said withdrawing the application did not amount to discontinuation of proceedings. He argued that if Gordon believed a criminal investigation was necessary, it should be dealt with in that forum rather than the court.
Speaking before Gordon addressed the issue substantively, Mulholland suggested it was an attempt to get the matter on the record for the media, calling this "wholly inappropriate". The judges expressed concern that dealing with the affidavit materials could prejudice any potential criminal prosecution.
Appeal continues on other grounds
The appeal, which has yet to be decided, proceeded on other grounds largely relating to how McGregor's "no comment" answers to gardai were allowed to enter the trial. Remy Farrell SC, also representing McGregor, said an "enormous amount of no comment material" had been entered into the hearings to no proper end.
Ray Boland SC, for Hand, argued it was clear from McGregor's evidence that he was presenting himself as wanting to be as cooperative as possible with the investigation. He said the line of questioning on the no-comment answers was appropriate and admissible.
(PA) Note: This article has been edited with the help of Artificial Intelligence.
