DURING THE THREE-WEEK civil trial against Conor McGregor, taken by Nikita Hand, a number of matters were raised in the absence of a jury, including mention of a raid on the plaintiff’s house.
Details of those matters, heard in legal discussion, can now be reported.
Nikita Hand (Ní Laimhín) alleged that McGregor raped her in a hotel penthouse in Dublin on 9 December 2018, Mr Justice Alexander Owens.
On Friday, the jury found that the former MMA fighter had assaulted Ms Hand six years ago. The panel of eight women and four men had heard from both Hand and McGregor, as well as medical professionals, witnesses from the hotel and gardaí.
On the first day of proceedings, before a jury had been sworn in, a matter was raised by Hand’s counsel relating to an incident which they claimed happened on the night of 14 June 2024.
Counsel told Mr Justice Owens that on that date, Hand’s home in Drimnagh was invaded by a group of masked men. The incident resulted in her partner at the time suffering stab wounds and the front windows of her home being broken before the invaders left.
Her daughter was in the next room during the incident.
John Gordon SC, for Hand, said that he was not claiming that this had anything to do with McGregor and would have no difficulty making that clear to the jury in his opening and closing arguments.
However, he said they were making the claim that it was not an untargeted attack and that it arose “from supporters of the first named defendant”.
Hand moved away from Drimnagh following the incident.
Gordon said the matter was relevant to the item of special damage and relevant to Hand’s claim of suffering with anxiety.
For McGregor, Remy Farrell SC told the judge that a claim of special damage from Hand where the plaintiff said she is entitled to a new house “is novel”. He said it seems to be that the plaintiff is acknowledging this incident, “which we know nothing about”.
He said it was “nothing to do with us” and that it was an “extraordinary” attempt to “smuggle something like that into the case”.
Gordon said he was not inviting the jury to speculate and not making a claim.
Mr Justice Owens said: “I consider this to be completely and utterly irrelevant and it shouldn’t be referred to.”
The matter wasn’t referred to again but during his evidence, Dr Frank Clarke, Hand’s GP of around 20 years, made reference to her having difficulty getting to the practice because of having to move.
“She moved away from the area because of something that happened,” he said. He didn’t say what it was.
After Clarke had finished his evidence, the jury were asked to step out before the next witness was called. Counsel for Hand said that what appears to have happened is the witness indicated that there may have been another incident, which was something that would aggravate PTSD, and the witness was asked not to pursue it.
“I don’t know how far counsel want to get into it because when you have an incident piled on top of another incident, what is the result?” Mr Justice Owens said. “It’s out now. The jury know that some other thing happened.”
The judge said it had nothing to do with McGregor and asked Remy Farrell SC what he wanted to do. Farrell said he wanted to do nothing about it but he said he was not sure “how you can address it without getting into it”.
The judge said he had raised the matter because the next witness was a psychiatrist. John Gordon SC said the matter would not come up in relation to the next witness.
On the second day of the civil trial, correspondence between Hand and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was introduced by her counsel. Before they could proceed, Mr Justice Owens asked the jury to step out and inquired as to the relevance of the correspondence to the case.
Ray Boland SC, for Hand, referred to a claim that was being made by the defence – namely, that Hand’s claim was made maliciously and in bad faith, and that the costs she was seeking had no basis.
“Colloquially, what we say is the defence are alleging that Ms Hand is a gold digger and that this is all for monetary gain,” Boland said.
He said that the timing of Hand going to a solicitor is relevant because she did not go to her solicitor until after the DPP decided not to prosecute McGregor.
He said Hand had engaged with the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre (DRCC) and that after asking the DPP to review their decision, she drafted a letter with the help of the DRCC which stated that she was unhappy with the decision and that she felt “I’ve been treated differently to other people because one of the suspects is a famous person”.
Boland said that the DPP’s decision not to prosecute was relayed to Hand in the summer of 2020, and that she did not go to a solicitor until October of that year.
Mr Justice Owens allowed the material to be submitted into evidence on this basis. But later that afternoon, he said that while it was agreed that the correspondence may be relevant for showing that Hand was pursuing the matter with Gardaí initially, the views of the DPP “are legally and factually irrelevant”.
“In my view, the issue of the DPP is completely and utterly irrelevant,” Mr Justice Owens said, adding that it cannot be evidence.
He said it can’t be that views of other people could “possibly be of any relevance to the jury or assistance to them in this case”.
Mr Justice Owens also made his view known about bound copies of interviews between Hand and Gardaí, which were given to the jury that same day as part of her cross-examination by Remy Farrell SC. The judge said that this was “not evidence” and not something the witness could be cross-examined on.
The following morning, counsel agreed with the judge’s observations. “Needless to say you were correct,” Remy Farrell said.
“Of course I’m correct,” Mr Justice Owens replied.
The judge said that in the future, the pleading should not be handed in at the beginning of a case, and that the bundle of Garda interviews that were given to the jury would be taken back from them.
He said that everything must be identified by the witness first, and that while he did not think any harm had been done, he would explain the evidential significance of the case to the jury.
Hand’s counsel, John Gordon SC, told the court that his side had not been able to view the booklet of interviews in advance and were given no opportunity to review it. “That in my experience is unique,” he said.
“It’s not unique,” Mr Justice Owens replied, adding that counsel is expected to “pounce” on these matters when they are introduced in court, and that he will “usually pounce as the judge”.
Gordon said the proper thing to do is to discuss it in advance and have agreement, which was not done.
The judge agreed. “I’ve had chaos erupting in front of me in various civil cases and have had to put a stop to it,” he said.
When the jury returned, Mr Justice Owens told them that they had received “a big volume of material” the day before.
“None of it is evidence in this trial because the evidence is given here,” he said, adding that they were not entitled to read it “at all, in my view”.
“If you have been reading it, put it out of your mind,” he said. “It’s a lot of clutter which is of absolutely no relevance to what you have to decide in the case.”
Mr Justice Owens said the jury can listen to counsel cross examining the witness and can put to her that certain things were said, but “you don’t get all of a person’s previous statements in a case and there’s a reason why you don’t get it and it’s called the rule against hearsay”.
He said that “merely repeating something again and again beforehand doesn’t make evidence more truthful”.
Giving an example, the judge said that if he ran down the Quays in Dublin “loudly complaining that Mr Farrell has stolen €5 out of my pocket, that doesn’t for an iota support the proposition that he did anything of the sort”.
“Those people weren’t there. I’m not entitled to say all that to buttress my case and those people cannot be called as evidence as they weren’t there,” he said.
He said the material the jury were given “is of no assistance to you” and that it was “all going to be taken back off you”.
“It may have been very interesting, but you can’t use it to buttress the plaintiff’s case.”
Mr Justice Owens said that the same thing applied to the correspondence with the DPP.
“You might think they have investigated all of this, there’s nothing in it,” he began, before saying: “The DPP isn’t here.
“You have to decide on the evidence that’s here. The DPP’s view is about as useful as my say, and that is of no use at all,” he said.
“In relation to the DPP’s view, forget it. Put it all out of your mind. It shouldn’t influence your decision at all. If we wanted to do it that way we’d have a jury of DPPs with their files in front of us.”
He said the correspondence was only given to the jury “to show the context in which the plaintiff eventually went to her solicitor”.
“It really wasn’t necessary to have all that stuff read out to you so put it out of your mind.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say