Conor McGregor wants a court to admit new evidence from two people in support of his appeal aimed at overturning a civil jury’s finding that he raped a woman in a Dublin hotel.
New evidence cannot be admitted without permission of the court and a hearing date for Mr McGregor’s formal application to admit it is expected to be fixed during a case management hearing on May 2nd.
Ray Boland SC, for Nikita Hand, said he would be opposing the application to admit what he described as the “alleged new evidence”.
Mr Boland had earlier argued the appeal should proceed on the grounds as already filed. If Mr McGregor succeeded on any of those, he would be entitled to a retrial when the alleged fresh evidence could be put before the court, he said.
How a Dublin school investigated online claims that alleged GAA catfish taught in its school
Rise of ‘The Family’: the group that became Ireland’s biggest crime gang without firing a shot
The inside story of how Conor McGregor secured his meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office
Her ‘no’ was clear. She did not want to go home with him. Still he went on. And on
Remy Farrell SC, who said he was appearing with a Kings Counsel, Mark Mulholland, and with barrister Shelley Horan for Mr McGregor, said Mr Boland was effectively arguing for a “modular” appeal which would be a waste of court time and costs. The appeal has to be decided in context and that required admission of the evidence, he said.
Mr Justice Noonan said the appeal should not proceed without the court having determined whether the new evidence was admissible. A formal application to admit it would have to be brought and affidavits would have to be filed outlining the new evidence, he said.
He made directions for exchange of the necessary papers between the sides and listed the matter for further directions on May 2nd.
The mixed martial arts fighter’s filed grounds of appeal are understood to be wide-ranging, including claims over the conduct of the 12 day trial by Mr Justice Alexander Owens.
Mr McGregor will contend the trial judge made legal and factual errors in his directions concerning the treatment of evidence, including Mr McGregor’s own evidence, and in his charge to the jury.
Some grounds focus on whether the trial judge erred in directing that the jury be asked to answer whether or not Mr McGregor “assaulted” Ms Hand rather than whether or not he had “sexually assaulted” her.
Last November, a High Court civil jury awarded €248,603 damages to Ms Hand against Mr McGregor after finding she was assaulted by him in the Beacon hotel in Sandyford on December 9th 2018.
Ms Hand, a 36-year-old mother of one, had said in evidence she had told Mr McGregor she did not want to have intercourse with him, she felt uncomfortable, but he “would not take no for an answer”.
She was wearing a tampon at the time and would not have sex during her period, she said.
Mr McGregor denied rape and said he and Ms Hand had “fully consensual”, “vigorous”, “athletic” sex. He said he was shocked when later shown photos of bruising on Ms Hand, he had not caused them and there was no tampon.
When charging the jury, Mr Justice Owens told them, if a person proves they were subject by another person to non-consensual sexual activity, that is the tort [a civil wrong causing harm or loss leading to legal liability] of assault. Consent to sexual activity is a “two-way street”, he said.
The jury found James Lawrence (35), of Rafter’s Road, Drimnagh, had not assaulted Ms Hand through allegedly having sex with her without her consent in the Beacon hotel.
Mr Lawrence had said in his evidence they had consensual sex twice. Ms Hand said she had no memory of that and described it as “a made-up story”.
During cross-examination, Mr Lawrence, whose legal fees the jury heard were being paid by Mr McGregor, denied he was a “fall-guy” in relation to the allegation Mr McGregor had raped Ms Hand.
A date will be fixed later for the hearing of Mr Lawrence’s appeal against the trial judge’s refusal to order Ms Hand to pay his legal costs of the trial. That appeal will be heard in tandem with Mr McGregor’s appeal.
