Conor McGregor has been ordered to pay Nikita Hand €100,000 of her €250,000 damages and €200,000 of her expected €1.3m legal costs ahead of any appeal the MMA fighter intends to take.
Last November a jury found McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand in a civil case she took against him over an alleged rape in December 2018.
Ruling this afternoon, Judge Alexander Owens also ordered McGregor to delete any copies of CCTV footage he obtained from the case after he said it was clear there was a “danger” that such material may be posted on the internet by an Italian business associate of McGregor’s.
Ms Hand’s lawyers had this week applied for an injunction to prevent McGregor posting CCTV from the Beacon Hotel showing Ms Hand’s activities both before and after the alleged rape in December 2018. This came after the Sunday Independent reported that Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, McGregor’s Italian stout distributor, had claimed the CCTV footage would be released in January and this would change views on McGregor and boost sales of his stout.
Nikita Hand’s lawyers move to block the release of hotel CCTV
Judge Owens said there was a “demonstrable risk” that McGregor would provide the footage to Mr Rapisarda. He said the fighter had not engaged in the complaint when Ms Hand’s lawyers had written to him last week to seek assurances that this would not happen.
He said it was “not good enough” that McGregor was seeking more time to respond rather than offering assurances that this release of CCTV would not happen.
He gave McGregor one week to file an affidavit setting out that he had deleted all copies of the CCTV footage that he held on fobs, computers or phones. He said he must also write to Mr Rapisarda to ensure he also complied with the court’s order.
The judge said that McGregor must comply with his undertaking as a party in the case to not to use evidence obtained in the trial for purposes other than use in the case.
He said the records were obtained by gardaí as part of a criminal investigation, and litigants who obtained such records were bound by undertakings to only to use the material for that litigation.
He said it was a criminal offence punishable by jail to unlawfully release someone’s personal information. It would also be civil contempt.
The judge said it was clear from Mr Rapisarda’s public posts that he was a business partner of McGregor’s and that he had said release of the CCTV would boost sales of McGregor’s stout.
Read more
Judge Owens said the trial had concluded so there was no reason for McGregor to retain the footage. While he was entitled to discuss the evidence with his partner Dee Devlin, he was not entitled to share it with his business partner for purposes unconnected to the case.
The judge said McGregor has already engaged in “irresponsible and intemperate behaviour” on social media by calling Ms Hand a “liar” since the verdict.
He said the facts were clear that “the jury has determined that he raped her” in 2018.
He said the matter has been “decisively determined” against McGregor and this will be the situation unless McGregor succeeds on appeal.
McGregor “does not get another run of the case” though social media or his surrogates, he said.
The judge said he does not intend to take any further action against McGregor over his social media posts criticising the jury case as being a “kangaroo court” as this would be a “distraction” that would keep McGregor in the news.
He said it was up to Ms Hand if she wished to take action against McGregor for his “defamatory comments” about her lying under oath.
He said there was a “real danger” that McGregor had arranged for Mr Rapisarda to get the CCTV from the case and this would be a civil contempt of court and a “potential gross breach of Ms Hand’s right to privacy”.
He said such leaking would be a “gross contempt of court” and could possibly influence a new jury if there was a retrial following an appeal.
The judge said he had to nip all that in the bud by acting immediately.
He directed McGregor to delete all CCTV footage he had or to return it to his solicitor. If it is necessary for McGregor to view the footage again, he could do so in his solicitor’s office under supervision.
If the material has been released to Mr Rapisarda or anyone else, McGregor must contact them and instruct them to return it.
This was necessary to ensure no abuse of court took place. He ordered McGregor to pay €100,000 of the damages awarded against him and €200,000 of Ms Hand’s legal costs.
No costs order was made in the part of the case involving James Lawrence, McGregor’s friend who the jury found did not assault Ms Hand. The court was previously told McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence’s legal costs.
The case will return before the judge on February 12.
Earlier in the day, Judge Owens remarked that McGregor was “one of the richest men in the country”.
Remy Farrell, senior counsel for McGregor, said there should be stay on costs orders pending an appeal. Among the grounds of appeal is the question the jury was asked in the issue paper about whether McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand. He said both sides had wanted the issue paper to ask whether Ms Hand was sexually assaulted, not just assaulted.
He said the issue paper ordered by the judge raised issues about interpreting the verdict.
Mr Farrell said there was no point in the injunction application as he accepted his client had an obligation under the discovery undertaking not to disseminate the CCTV footage.
He asked for an adjournment on this application but Judge Owens said the matter was urgent and needed to be decided today.
Mr Farrell said it was wrong to say that material in a civil trial that arose in discovery “exists in a locked box”.
He said it was open to journalists, litigants and other interested parties to apply to court for copies of affidavits or exhibits from a trial.
Judge Owens said it would be “crazy stuff” if partial evidence in the case was to circulate online ahead of what would be a new jury trial if McGregor was successful in his appeal.
He questioned how there could be a fair retrial.
The judge said before social media no newspaper would have called Ms Hand “a liar” as McGregor has done on social media since the verdict. He said McGregor seemed to want to selectively use bits of evidence from the case to suit himself.
“Things seem to have changed but the law hasn’t,” said the judge.
Mr Farrell said there was a fade factor and it was normal for there to be commentary on a case after a verdict.
Mr Farrell said Dave Coleman, Ms Hand’s solicitor, was factually incorrect in asserting in an affidavit that Mr Rapisarda had been given the CCTV footage by McGregor.
He said that McGregor had the footage at home and is perfectly entitled to have it. He said McGregor likely showed it to his partner and he was entitled to do this as he was preparing for the case.
The judge asked how Mr Rapisarda could make detailed comments about what was seen on the CCTV footage and talk about how its release would cause an “explosion” in the Forged Irish stout brand in Italy.
Mr Farrell said the CCTV had been shown in open court and been widely described in media and social media.
He described the newspaper reports as “hearsay upon hearsay”.
The judge said the only interpretation of Mr Rapisarda’s social media posts was that he was privy to the CCTV footage and that it was intended to be released this month.
In a heated exchange, Mr Farrell said this was “utter nonsense”.
Judge Owens said there was a “clear danger” of the material being released and that the footage would get into the furthest corners of the internet “for the purpose of influencing”.
The judge said he wanted to know what records McGregor has, who he has shown them to and for him to ensure the material would be given back to his solicitors.
Mr Farrell said it was “intolerable” that the judge interrupted him every time he started a sentence when trying to make a submission.
He said the application was based on “what some lad on the internet has said”. He said hearsay was not admissible, there was no basis for the orders sought and McGregor had confirmed there has been no dissemination of the CCTV footage.
He asked for adjournment so McGregor’s side could have time to put a responding affidavit in.
A senior counsel for the Garda commissioner was in court. He said the material had been supplied with an undertaking and it was a matter for the court to decide on whether that had been complied with.
Greenisland residents can’t access ‘private’ beach blocked by NI Water