Conor McGregor seeks permission from Supreme Court for further appeal over ruling in favour of Nikita Hand – The Irish Times

Conor McGregor has filed an application seeking a further appeal, this time to the Supreme Court, over a civil High Court jury finding that he assaulted Nikita Hand in a Dublin hotel.

A panel of three Supreme Court judges will decide, at a future date, whether the appeal meets the necessary criteria for the court to hear it.

The court will only hear an appeal if the panel decides an issue of public importance is raised or that an appeal is in the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) had last July dismissed, on all grounds, Mr McGregor’s appeal against the High Court civil jury finding that he assaulted Ms Hand in Dublin’s Beacon Hotel on December 9th, 2018. The court upheld the jury’s award of almost €250,000 in damages to Ms Hand and directed she was entitled to her legal costs against Mr McGregor.

The CoA dismissed a related appeal by James Lawrence, of Rafter’s Road, Drimnagh, against a decision by the High Court’s Mr Justice Alexander Owens, refusing to grant him legal costs against Ms Hand after the jury rejected her claim Mr Lawrence assaulted her after Mr McGregor left the hotel.

Since the CoA judgment, Mr McGregor has instructed new lawyers, Mulholland Law, to represent him in an application to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal against the CoA decision.

Mulholland Law are also representing Mr Lawrence in a similar application for an appeal over the refusal of costs.

In a statement on Thursday, Mulholland Law said applications on behalf of Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence were filed with the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The statement said Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence are “deeply disappointed” by the decisions, now subject of appeal, made in the lower courts.

Mr Lawrence’s grievances has now resulted in separate High Court proceedings being issued against Ms Hand for perjury, the statement said. While those proceedings were “in their infancy”, they were confident Mr Lawrence “will be properly vindicated and the record set straight in due course”.

Solicitor Ciaran Mulholland said in the statement the firm believes the Supreme Court applications raise serious legal issues arising from the CoA judgment of July 31st last.

He said Mr McGregor’s application for an appeal focuses on his right to silence, “properly exercised on occasions”.

The High Court had heard Mr McGregor had replied “no comment” when questioned by gardaí after from allegations by Ms Hand.

The solicitor said “lip service” was applied by the lower courts “in a highly prejudicial and unfair manner” to Mr McGregor’s constitutional right and it “is only right and just” that this is considered and clarified by the Supreme Court.

Mr Mulholland said there is “a necessity” that the Supreme Court clarify the legal points raised in the separate application of Mr Lawrence, “a gentleman that was wrongfully and unnecessarily dragged through High Court litigation without cause and who, despite successfully defending that litigation, was not awarded costs”.

“This is an unprecedented and frightening ruling,” Mr Mulholland said. “It was legally shortsighted by the Court of Appeal, demonstrating their bias of my clients.”

“An award of costs must always follow the event irrespective of the client or judicial suspicions.”

While the courts’ decisions are respected, they are not accepted by Mr McGregor and Mr Lawtence, and will be challenged, he said.

It must be remembered these are civil proceedings,” he said. “No criminal prosecution was ever pursued, precisely because of the absence of adequate evidence following an extensive Garda investigation which found only doubt. This is a fact, not a suspicion, and has too often been overlooked in the media frenzy that has cultivated this civil litigation to a political football, exploited by the opportunistic.”

Ms Hand had sued Mr McGregor for damages, alleging he raped her in the Beacon hotel on December 9th, 2018.

During his appeal last July, Mr McGregor sought to introduce new evidence that his lawyers said would call into question key aspects of Ms Hand’s testimony, including how she sustained serious bruising on her body.

It included sworn statements by Samantha O’Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins, who lived across the road from Ms Hand in Drimnagh, Dublin, for a time.

Ms O’Reilly claimed, from a room in her house, she heard and saw what appeared to be a physical altercation between Ms Hand and her then partner, Stephen Redmond, on the night of December 9/10th, 2018.

That evidence, Mr McGregor claimed, bolstered his insistence he was not responsible for extensive bruising on the body of Ms Hand, noted by a doctor on December 10th, 2018.

In a replying affidavit, Ms Hand described the neighbours’ claims as “lies” and said Mr Redmond never assaulted her during their relationship.

The new evidence was unexpectedly withdrawn by Mr McGregor’s legal team on the morning of the appeal. The CoA later granted an application by Ms Hand’s lawyers to refer material to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for consideration of possible perjury, including possible induced perjury by Mr McGregor.

The DPP then directed the Garda to conduct an investigation which led last week to the arrest of a man and woman for interview. They were later released without charge and gardai said a file will be sent to the DPP.