Nikita Hand welcomes Supreme Court rejection of Conor McGregor appeal bid
Nikita Hand speaking to the media after attending the Court of Appeal in July. File picture: Collins Courts/CC
Nikita Hand has welcomed the Supreme Court's rejection of Conor McGregor’s bid for a further appeal against a jury finding that he assaulted her in a Dublin hotel.
Ms Hand was awarded almost €250,000 in damages in the Hight Court after she claimed Mr McGregor raped her in the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford on December 9 of 2018.
In a statement welcoming the Supreme Court’s decision, Ms Hand said the “public and private roads that I and my loved ones have travelled have been long and painful”.
“Today marks not a victory for me but for all of those who have been treated as I have. You are never alone on your journey, if you choose not to be. Help and support is there.”
The Court of Appeals dismissed Mr McGregor’s appeal against the High Court civil jury in July, upholding the jury’s award to Ms Hand, stating she was entitled to her legal costs against Mr McGregor.
The Court dismissed a similar appeal by Mr James Lawrence, friend of McGregor's. He had sought to have his legal costs paid after the jury found he had not assaulted Ms Hand following Mr McGregor’s departure from the hotel.
High Court judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens had refused that request, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision.
Mr McGregor’s appeal centred on his right to remain silent.
When questioned by gardaí about Ms Hand’s allegations, he repeatedly replied, “no comment,” and he argued that Mr Justice Owens should not have allowed lawyers for Ms Hand to question him about those answers.
He also contended that the jury should have been instructed to disregard them entirely.
In its determination, the Supreme Court noted that the Court of Appeal had already found Mr Justice Owens was wrong to allow such cross-examination.
However, the Court of Appeal also concluded that Mr McGregor’s lawyers had failed to show any real risk that this error deprived him of a fair hearing, particularly since the judge had clearly instructed the jury that the “no comment” responses could not be interpreted as indicating guilt or supporting the allegation of rape.
The Supreme Court ruled that Mr McGregor’s application did not raise any issue of “general public importance.”
The judges said the Court of Appeal had applied long-established legal principles in deciding whether the jury should have been discharged due to the High Court’s error.
They concluded that Mr McGregor nonetheless received a “fair hearing,” even with the admission of the “no comment” material, and that he had already benefitted from his right to appeal.
They were not persuaded that allowing a further appeal was justified “in the interests of justice".
The judges also denied Mr Lawrence’s attempt to appeal, saying he had provided no “persuasive reasons” to suggest the lower court’s ruling on his legal costs was incorrect or unjust.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
