Conor McGregor appeal evidence withdrawal to be referred to prosecutors

Ireland's Court of Appeal is to refer a matter in a case involving the former mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter Conor McGregor to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

The court is hearing an appeal by McGregor arising from a finding in the High Court last year when a woman who accused McGregor of raping her won her civil claim against him for damages.

A jury found McGregor sexually assaulted Nikita Hand in a Dublin hotel in December 2018.

He was ordered to pay her more than €248,000 (£206,000) in damages and, subsequently, her legal costs.

The Court of Appeal hearing ended on Wednesday afternoon and a full decision will be given at a later date. McGregor has not appeared at the appeal hearing since it began on Tuesday.

On the second day of the appeal hearing, a barrister for Nikita Hand asked the court to refer papers, relating to an issue from the opening day of the appeal, to Irish public prosecutors.

It followed the dramatic withdrawal of proposed new evidence by McGregor at the beginning of the appeal on Tuesday.

The proposed new evidence was from a couple, Samantha O'Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins, who were former neighbours of Nikita Hand.

They had previously claimed, in an affidavit, to have witnessed a row between Nikita Hand and a former partner in the home they shared at the time.

A preliminary hearing had been told that McGregor believed the new evidence suggested that bruising on Nikita Hand's body could have been caused by her former partner.

Ms Hand had described their claims as "lies" and she came to court yesterday prepared to take the witness stand to be cross-examined about the matter.

However, the hearing began with the unexpected announcement that McGregor had decided to withdraw the proposed new evidence.

His barrister said part of the reason was because other supporting evidence they wanted to introduce would not be admissible.

He also said the legal team believed there was no corroboration of Ms O'Reilly's evidence, and it was not a sustainable ground.

As the decision was being outlined by McGregor's legal team, judges on the three-member appeal panel sought further clarification about why the decision had been taken.

One judge said she did not fully understand the reason for the withdrawal of the evidence, while a second judge said "bemused" was a kind way of describing what he was hearing about the decision.

Ms Hand's lawyer said on Tuesday that she was due an apology for being "put through the wringer" about the evidence which was being dropped.

On Wednesday, he said the proposed new evidence had been widely circulated in the media and the allegations were made to undermine Ms Hand's reputation.

He asked the court to send papers relating to the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the court agreed.

Earlier on Wednesday, the court heard that James Lawrence, who alongside McGregor was accused of rape by Ms Hand, was appealing the decision not to award him costs after the jury in the civil case last year found he did not assault her.

A barrister for Mr Lawrence told the appeal court that the general principle is that "costs follow events".

He said the event in this case was the finding that Mr Lawrence did not assault Nikita Hand.

At the High Court trial in 2024, the judge said the two men were acting in "lockstep" in their defence of the action and it would be inappropriate to award costs to Mr Lawrence even though the jury found he did not rape Ms Hand.

At the appeal on Wednesday morning, Mr Lawrence's barrister said the trial judge had acted in an "incorrect manner" and the jury had rejected there had been collusion.

A barrister for Ms Hand responded by pointing out that the 2024 trial had been told McGregor paid Mr Lawrence's legal fees, and they had been using the same legal teams until recently

He said he did not want to speculate on the reason for Mr Lawrence having a different legal team now but added it was "presumably to put an air of distance between them".

He also said any award of costs to Mr Lawrence would exceed the level of damages awarded to Ms Hand, and would "set at nought" the award of damages to Ms Hand.

One of the three judges said the barrister was making a "difficult" argument because he was asking them to look at "the consequences" of the High Court case while their responsibility is to look at the case.