Jury 'can’t speculate' in civil case against Conor McGregor for alleged rape, judge says
The jury can consider if mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor (pictured) 'sat down to concoct a lurid and degrading pornographic fantasy' about Nikita Hand. Photo: Collins Courts
A jury can consider if mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor "sat down to concoct a lurid and degrading pornographic fantasy” about Nikita Hand, who is also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, if assessing damages in the case, the High Court has heard.
Continuing his charge to the jury on Wednesday, Mr Justice Alexander Owens said that, if they conclude that Mr McGregor did assault Ms Hand, they would have to consider the damages to award in the ongoing civil case.
He also said that, while Mr McGregor's statement to gardaí was not admissible as it was a prior statement, they could consider if he “concocted” the story involving Ms Hand when considering aggravated damages. Mr Justice Owens also said the jury must come to their conclusions based on the evidence they have.
“You shouldn’t speculate,” Mr Justice Alexander Owens told the eight women and four men. “If you did, you wouldn’t be an Inspector Poirot but an Inspector Clouseau.”
Ms Hand (Ní Laimhín) alleges that Mr McGregor — once the highest-earning sportsperson in the world — “brutally raped and battered” her in a Dublin hotel penthouse six years ago. Mr McGregor says they had consensual sex that day and he did not assault her. He told the court they had "athletic", "enthusiastic" sex in a "multitude of positions".
Ms Hand, a hair colourist, is seeking damages from Mr McGregor and James Lawrence, of Rafter's Road, Drimnagh, Dublin 12, arising from the events of December 9, 2018, at the penthouse suite of the Beacon Hotel in Dublin.
Mr Lawrence claims that he twice had consensual sex with Ms Hand after Mr McGregor left the hotel. Ms Hand said that Mr Lawrence’s claim of consensual sex is “lies”. Both Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence deny the allegations.
The jury was told they will be asked to consider all the evidence and come to a conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, if Conor McGregor assaulted Nikita Hand on December 9, 2018.
If nine or more people on the 12-person jury conclude that he did not, and come to the same conclusion for James Lawrence, then they cannot move to the question of damages.
However, if nine or more conclude Mr McGregor did assault Ms Hand, then those jurors must then consider what level of damages to award in this civil case.
Mr Justice Owens said there were several forms of damages they could consider. This includes general damages, and damages that can be added on top of that like aggravated damages and punitive damages.
They can, for example, assess damages in relation to her loss of earnings and medical bills since the events of December 9, 2018. He also made a distinction between aggravated and punitive damages for the benefit of the jury.
“Aggravated damages or compensatory damages are for conduct which shocks the plaintiff,” the judge said. “Exemplary [or punitive] damages are damages for conduct which shocks the jury. That’s what you’re doing there.”
In the case of punitive damages, he said the jury needed to be clear on why they were taking that course, such as a situation where they considered “witnesses got together to concoct a story” that the plaintiff was a “golddigger” or if it was a “shakedown”.
He said that, should they conclude Mr McGregor assaulted Ms Hand, they must be “proportionate” in the level of damages they award in this case.
“Keep a sense of proportion and fairness in mind,” Mr Justice Owens said. “And fairness for Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence.
“You might perceive Mr McGregor is wealthy and can afford to pay. You forget all about that in relation to the award.
“While punitive damages are damages that some things that shock the jury. At the same time you should exercise a proportionality in relation to it. Don’t go overboard in relation to that.”
When referencing aggravated damages, he said that in situations where someone has been raped, “you can take it such a victim would have to live with the thought [of what happened] for many years to come”. “Rapes are devastating for victims who have to live with it for the rest of their lives,” he said.
He added they couldn’t speculate on what a witness might have said, and to examine the CCTV footage carefully when they were coming to their conclusions.
“You’re stuck with the evidence, you can’t speculate on what they would’ve said if they were put on the rack in the Tower of London,” Mr Justice Owens said.
He said CCTV footage has “no axe to grind” and that, while they could take on board the arguments made by the legal teams on what that footage shows, “you are the judges” and “the luxury of being a judge is that you can look at things in an entirely different way”.
He said to consider the evidence available as to the intoxication of the people involved in this case, as well as other factors and what that may suggest to them.
Mr Justice Owens will continue summarising the case on Thursday morning.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
