Nikita Hand and ex-partner rowing claims withdrawn from Conor McGregor appeal

Conor McGregor has withdrawn "at the last minute" claims by a couple that they saw a row between Nikita Hand and her ex-partner on the night she said the UFC fighter raped her. The bombshell development occurred at the very opening of the UFC fighter’s appeal at Dublin ’s High Court - which heard that these claims were “unsustainable.” McGregor is appealing a jury decision in November that he assaulted former hairdresser Nikita Hand, who alleged she was raped by him at the Beacon Hotel in Dublin in December 2018. The jury found in favour of Ms Hand and awarded her almost €250,000 in damages. McGregor put forward five grounds for appeal against that decision - ultimately dramatically withdrawing what he argued was “new evidence” in the form of claims made by former neighbours of Ms Hand - Samantha O’Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins. The couple had sworn affidavits claiming they heard a row between Ms Hand and her then partner on the night of 9 December 2018, after the alleged rape, with Ms O'Reilly claiming she saw the row from her bedrooom in a house across the road. She claimed Ms Hand's then boyfriend pushed her and she saw him moving his arms and hips as though he was punching and kicking her. Nikita Hand Mr Cummins had claimed he was woken by screams and shouts coming from Ms Hand's house but said he did not see what had happened. Their claims have now been totally withdrawn by McGregor - with Ms Hand's Counsel seeking an apology from him over the ordeal. Mr McGregor, who was not present in court, also argued four other grounds of appeal - such as that it wasn’t specified on the issue paper to the jury that Ms Hand suffered a sexual assault. He was also arguing about the use and admissibility of his client's “no comment” answers given to gardai in 2018, how the Judge handled that issue during the trial - and about his right to silence. But proceedings began with McGregor withdrawing what was set to be a major focus of the hearing - the evidence of Ms O’Reilly and Mr Cummins - which would have also seen Nikita Hand having to take the witness box. Mark Mulholland KC for Mr McGregor said they were also withdrawing evidence of Northern Ireland’s former State pathologist Professor Jack Crane. Counsel for the MMA star admitted the ground for the appeal was “unsustainable.” Ms Hand had stated in an affidavit that the claims by the couple were “lies,” and in the opening moments of Tuesday's hearing, her counsel contended that McGregor was now “conceding” that fact. Mr Gordon SC for Nikita Hand called for Mr McGregor’s counsel to apologise to Ms Hand for what was done to her in the last few months with coverage of the couple’s claims being broadcast in the media and in affidavits before the court, which the witnesses were now withdrawing. "An apology would be a start", he told the court. Nikita Hand, who a civil jury found last November was assaulted by Mr McGregor, attended the appeal hearing before the Hugh Kennedy Court on Tuesday morning. Ms Hand was supported in court by her partner, mother, friends - and a large crowd of supporters who were outside the building - including assault victim Natasha O’Brien and Hazel Behan, the woman who accuses Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner of rape. Mr McGregor, who was not required to be present in court, did not appear - and was represented by Remy Farrell SC and Michael Staines solicitor. Ms Hand was being represented by John Gordon SC and Ray Boland SC - instructed by Dave Coleman solicitors. Mr McGregor’s appeal was being heard before Ms Isobel Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore and Mr Justice Patrick Macgrath. Counsel for Mr McGregor told the court they “cannot sustain” the grounds of appeal regarding the couple and the evidence of the former pathologist, which they said was taken to potentially corroborate those claims. John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, told the three Judges that he had been informed of the development 10 minutes before the hearing today - and stated that it was “unacceptable.” "My client (Ms Hand) has been put through the wringer yet again. She answered it in her affidavit that it was all lies. That has now been conceded,” Mr Gordon told the court. He further stated that Mr McGregor’s side were now thinking they could “waltz in here and think they can walk away from this.” Mr Mullholand, for McGregor said the evidence of Professor Crane told the Judges that there was "no corroboration" for Ms O'Reilly's evidence without Professor Crane, and therefore they had come to believe the conclusion that this grounds for appeal was "not sustainable." "It was the holistic view for both to be run in tandem and with one not being run, the strength of the other was not sufficient," Mr Mullholland told the court. Ms Justice Kennedy said she found it most “unsatisfactory” that this application to remove those grounds of appeal “so late in the day.” Judge Kennedy says it is "unsatisfactory that this application is being made so late in the day." However she accepted the application, despite saying that it had been made “at the very last minute.” Following that Remy Farrell SC for Mr McGregor spoke at length about the other grounds of appeal - first dealing with his client’s 150 ‘no comment’ answers to gardai in Dundrum garda station - who investigated the rape claims in 2018. He told the court that the issue arose in cross examination of his client by John Gordon SC during the trial, and a misinterpretation of his response was used as a “hook” to say that Mr McGregor was telling the jury he wanted to tell the gardai everything. Mr Farrell said that Mr McGregor was in fact telling Mr Gordon how he interacted with his solicitor at the time - and not gardai - but that Mr Gordon went on to describe it as otherwise. "There is a remarkable conflation with what Mr McGregor said and what was said to him in cross examination,” Mr Farrell submitted to the judges. He submitted that there was an attempt made by Ms Hand’s counsel to “lead the evidence,” that this was an issue of contention during the trial and that they “simply decided to take a punt” on it. Mr Farrell argued that there was a "persistent attempt" by Ms Hand's Counsel to "paraphrase the answer that was given,” by his client during cross examination - and he was submitting that this was “simply not permissible.” He further stated that it was “notable” that the trial Judge - Mr Justice Alexander Owens did not deal with it and alleged that he was “patently incorrect” in terms of conclusions that he drew and stated to the jury in his charge to them. “It is simply wrong and in my submission manifestly wrong,” Mr Farrell said. Mr Farrell further alleged that Ms Hand’s Counsel made an attempt to draw an inference from his client’s no comment answers to gardai that there was “no smoke without fire.” And he said that it was clear that Mr Justice Owens “took a view” on this, intentional or not, to invite the jury to start drawing inferences over Mr McGregor’s multiple no comment answers to gardai. He stated that Judge Owens identified the purpose of the cross examination to the jury but that it was never followed through and so the jury was left “with a bizarre proposition.” Mr Farrell said the question was never asked and the jury was therefore invited to decide whether they thought McGregor misled them or that he left them under a false impression. “The reason the Judge is scrambling for some other justification for the admission of this evidence is the witness has not been cross examined for the admission of this evidence,” Mr Farrell added. He further stated that it invited an inference to be drawn that people cannot be allowed to sit in interviews and say nothing and then submit a statement. Remy Farrell said it invited an inference to be drawn that people should not be permitted to sit in interviews and say nothing and then submit a statement. Mr Farrell said this was like a reference to Jazz "where you look for the notes not being played. He told the court that the evidence of the no comments was brought into the case “without warning” and it was then “not pursued for the appropriate purpose.” He therefore argued that in those circumstances a retrial is warranted. Mr Farrell also made arguments in relation to the issue paper and the use of the word assault as opposed to sexual assault. At this point Judge Kennedy asked Mr Farrell if it was not absolutely clear that Judge Owens made it “quite clear” in the trial that the assault in this incidence “was committed by rape.” Subsequently Ray Boland SC for Ms Hand stated that the issue came up ahead of time and that both Counsels agreed on the wording on the issue paper. “As it happened the draft prepared by Mr Gordon said sexual assault, the draft prepared by the Judge said assault,” he told the court. However he said the issue was brought up with Mr Farrell at the time and they had agreed on the wording of “sexual assault.” “I say that that’s the first defendant basically agreeing with the issue paper from which they are now criticising. Assault is a broad umbrella, it covers - sexual assaults,” Mr Gordon told the court.. “What we were dealing with was assault by rape. There was no ambiguity whatsoever,” he added, saying it would be an “insult to the intelligence of the jury to say that they didn’t know what the case was about." On the no comment issue Mr Boland said there may have been a “breakdown in communications” during the trial but that if this was such a serious issue, Mr Farrell could have made arguments at the time about discharging the jury but he did not. “He could at that stage have made an application to discharge the jury which wasn’t made,” he told the court. He stated that the no comment answers were “not hugely probative” other than Mr McGregor was putting himself forward during the trial as someone who wanted to cooperate fully with the gardai and he didn’t. “That was the purpose for which it was put. The judge made it abundantly clear that the jury couldn’t draw an inference just because of the no comment advice,” Mr Boland further stated. He also told the court that it became clear at another point in cross examination that Mr Gordon was asking McGregor about his cooperation with gardai and not his solicitors. He alleged that Mr McGregor was putting himself forward to the jury as a person who wanted to cooperate as much as possible. “That’s the picture he was attempting to put forward before the jury." Mr Boland said “no injustice was done” in this case and that Judge Owens was correct to allow the evidence to be admitted. The Judges have yet to consider a costs issue in regards to James Lawrence - and so the matter has been put back to resume on Wednesday morning. Join our Dublin Live breaking news service on WhatsApp. Click this link to receive your daily dose of Dublin Live content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. For all the latest news from Dublin and surrounding areas visit our homepage.

View Original Article