Conor McGregor and witness u-turn couple face potential prosecution

Conor McGregor and a couple he put forward and subsequently withdrew as witnesses in his appeal are now facing potential criminal prosecution. Three Judges of the Court of Appeal made the bombshell decision to refer documentation put forward by Counsel for Nikita Hand to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) today, following claims of “perjury.” The Judges made the decision off the back of claims by John Gordon SC for Ms Hand, that “perjury” may have occurred in this case after sworn affidavits were opened in court by the now withdrawn witnesses Samantha O’Reilly and Steven Cummins.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. 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. Nikita Hand Their claims have now been totally withdrawn by McGregor - with Ms Hand's Counsel seeking an apology from him over the ordeal. It comes after Mr Gordon had asked the Judges yesterday that the court “ought to allow me to cross-examine Ms. O'Reilly and her partner and Mr. Staines and then refer the matter for perjury proceedings to the Director of Public Prosecutions and subornation of perjury against Mr. McGregor.” Reserving their judgement on McGregor’s actual appeal, main Judge Isobel Kennedy said she was referring the matter to the DPP. The DPP will examine whether any potential perjury has occurred and anyone found to be suspected or that could face criminal prosecution. The development is a major one and comes after Nikita Hand, who a jury last November found was assaulted by Conor McGregor, firmly refuted the claims made by Ms O’Reilly and Mr Cummins as “lies.” 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. 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 were been totally withdrawn by McGregor on Tuesday - with Judge Kennedy criticising the “last minute” move. The decision to refer matters to the DPP came after John Gordon SC asked to admit documentation as evidence today, which the Judges examined and determined should not be read out in court. He indicated that he had intended to cross examine Ms O’Reilly on the contents of that documentation before her evidence was withdrawn by McGregor. He told the court that the claims made by the couple had been opened in court and widely reported in the media - claims that McGregor’s side he said were now conceding were “lies.” Mr Mullholland KC, acting for McGregor said he was objecting to the documentation being opened in court - alleging that Ms Hand’s team wanted it read out for the benefit of the media. He argued that if the documents are to end up forming part of a potential criminal case, then it is in that forum that their contents should emerge. "It's relating 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,” he said. "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,” he said. “If as Mr Gordon raised yesterday there should be a criminal investigation..these are matters should be dealt with in that forum.” It comes as the hearing earlier heard from John Fitzgerald SC, who was arguing that it was wrong that his client James Lawrence - who was not found to have assaulted Ms Hand, was not awarded costs in the case. Mr Fitzgerald told the court that Ms Hand was shown considerable footage during the course of the trial in which she "accepted showed her having romantic designs on Mr Lawrence" He said it “wasn’t a dispute” that she was shown being affectionate towards Mr Lawrence. He pointed to Ms Hand stating that she believed Mr Lawrence was lying about his claim that they had had consensual sex - and believed it was a made up story. Mr Fitzgerald said this left the court in a "rather unusual position" as Ms Hand, who was suing Mr Lawrence for assault, was alleging in court that the incident never occurred. “There was evidence of consensual sex, evidence of no sex,” he said. Ray Boland SC for Ms Hand, in rejecting calls for Lawrence to be awarded costs, made submissions that he had taken the case alongside McGregor - who was paying his costs. "They (Lawrence and McGregor) were represented by the same solicitors, a joint defence was put in," Mr Boland told the court. "When questioned about whether Mr McGregor paid for Mr Lawrence's legal fees, he (McGregor) was very cagey about it," Mr Boland added. He was asked yes or no and ultimately said "I believe I did” - and it was not confirmed until the costs application when Remy Farrell SC for McGregor confirmed that he did indeed pay Mr Lawrence's fees. The Judges have also reserved judgment on Lawrence's costs appeal. 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