Judge criticises Conor McGregor's 'nonsense on the internet' in Nikita Hand CCTV ruling

While Conor McGregor (pictured) intends to appeal the case, the judge ruled in the interim he must pay €100,000 of the damages awarded to Ms Hand along with €200,000 of her legal costs. File photo: Leah Farrell / © RollingNews.ie

Mr Justice Alexander Owens was clear from the outset just how dim his view was of what Conor McGregor has been posting to social media.

This wasn’t to do with Mr McGregor’s more recent postings that frequently reference God. In fact, his bio on X and Instagram now declares “Pray EVERYDAY! #GOD #FAMILY #TRUTH”.

It was to do with what he’d had to say about Nikita Hand in the wake of the civil trial where she was awarded damages after alleging the MMA star had raped her in a hotel room in December 2018.

“He implied [Ms Hand] was a liar on a number of occasions,” Mr Justice Owens told the court. “And the court conducted business as a kangaroo court. I’ve read it. I don’t want to give oxygen to that. 

“You can’t give out the other side is a liar if you want another jury to hear it in perhaps a year’s time [in an appeal]. With all of this swinging around the internet. That's not right.

“There's a prospect another jury would deal with it. They might be influenced by this sort of nonsense on the internet.” 

Judge Alexander Owens: 'You can’t give out the other side is a liar if you want another jury to hear it in perhaps a year’s time.' File photo: Leah Farrell/© RollingNews.ie

What may well have been a straightforward hearing rubber stamping the awarding of costs in favour of Ms Hand against Mr McGregor was a different beast altogether on Thursday, as it centred around what was said online and what may be shared online in future.

The verdict may have been delivered close to two months ago and the jury is long gone, but the drama continued in Court 24 as this was dissected before the court as Mr Justice Owens traded words with Remy Farrell SC, representing Mr McGregor.

The judge said: “My position is Mr McGregor, by winks and nudges, wants to get into court of public opinion, selectively use bits and pieces of the case that suit himself for the purpose of that. That’s what it’s all about.

“You’d never hope to get a fair retrial if that were allowed to happen. He’s not in a position to do that as the verdict will stand until such time as a superior court vacates the decision of the jury.” 

Earlier, Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said Mr McGregor was trying to “relitigate” the case on social media and was “using and abusing” his position on social media. But McGregor's barrister took a different view.

“It cannot be the case that people are not entitled to express a view in respect of the outcome of a court case,” Mr Farrell contended. “And to disagree." 

Mr Justice Owens replied:

You can’t call someone a liar. That’s just not on. 

Another key element was the matter introduced by Ms Hand’s side earlier in the week, which was newspaper reports suggesting that an Italian business associate of Mr McGregor’s, Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, had claimed CCTV showing Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel would be released this month and that it would change the public’s view of the case.

Ms Hand’s side sought an injunction preventing that footage — which was given to Mr McGregor as part of discovery in the case — from being disseminated.

Mr Farrell described this account of the Italian associate as “hearsay upon hearsay” and said no injunction should be granted, as there was nothing to suggest Mr McGregor had disseminated this footage to the man in question.

He said it was already the case that Mr McGregor must not disseminate the video and there was no need for such an order.

On more than one occasion, Mr Farrell took the judge to task for “interrupting” him while he was making his arguments. He said it was “intolerable” trying to make an application to the court, and that it “wasn’t ideal” to “have the court laugh and say you’ve no hope”.

“I now want to make an application but I’m not sure there’s any point,” Mr Farrell said at one point. “You’ve explicitly determined the issue.” 

For his part, Mr Justice Owens said he was “always upfront” and that “every litigant gets the same with me”.

Ruling

With the issue of costs and the injunction up to decide, Mr Justice Owens retired just after midday and returned with his ruling at 2pm.

Earlier, he had pondered at one juncture on whether reprimanding Mr McGregor for his social media posts would “give oxygen” to them, while Mr Boland suggested it may “act as a deterrent”.

Ultimately, the judge decided not to take any action over this even though Mr McGregor’s comments were “not acceptable”.

“It’d be a distraction and only keep him in the news cycle,” he said.

Turning to the comments from the Italian associate about the CCTV footage being released this month, he said that if posted online the footage would be “in the very furthest corner of the internet”.

Mr Justice Owens said there was a “real and demonstrable” risk that Mr McGregor may provide this footage and that he must “nip all of this in the bud”.

Nikita Hand was awarded damages after alleging the MMA star had raped her in a hotel room in December 2018. File photo: Brian Lawless/PA

“It is necessary to act immediately to prevent harm,” he said. “This material is capable of being misused, and misused in a serious way.” 

He ordered that Mr McGregor must, within one week, return all copies he has of the CCTV to his solicitor and delete it from his devices. If he’s shared it with others, he must "retrieve it”.

While Mr McGregor intends to appeal the case, the judge ruled in the interim he must pay €100,000 of the damages awarded to Ms Hand along with €200,000 of her legal costs. The final legal bill is €1.3m, the court heard.

And it’s not over yet. Mr McGregor must file an affidavit ahead of another court hearing next month to demonstrate the measures he’s taken to get rid of the footage.

“He doesn’t get another run on the case by throwing out allegations in the public arena,” the judge added.