Conor McGregor and a couple he put forward before withdrawing as witnesses in his appeal could be facing criminal prosecution after a major development.
Last year, a 12-person jury in Dublin found the MMA star guilty of sexually assaulting Nikita Hand in a civil case after McGregor had been accused of raping her at a Dublin hotel in December 2018.
The Irishman, 36, was subsequently ordered to pay Ms Hand more than €248,000 (£206,000) in damages and an estimated €1.3million (£1.12m) in legal costs.
McGregor, who has always denied the claims, appealed against the decision and Ireland’s Court of Appeal has been hearing evidence over the past two days, with a verdict expected to be reached at a later date.
His grounds for appeal included claims that Judge Alexander Owens erred in directing the jury be asked to answer whether Mr McGregor ‘assaulted’ Ms Hand, rather than whether he had ‘sexually assaulted’ her.
He believed this left the verdict open to interpretation. His barrister, Remy Farrell, said McGregor was also challenging how the judge allowed Ms Hand’s lawyers to ask McGregor about dozens of ‘no comment’ responses he gave gardaí in 2019 interviews, after he was arrested following the initial rape complaint.
Conor McGregor and a couple he put forward before withdrawing as witnesses in his appeal could be facing criminal prosecution after a major development on Wednesday
Last year, a jury found the MMA star guilty of sexually assaulting Nikita Hand (above) in a civil case after McGregor had been accused of raping her at a Dublin hotel in December 2018
McGregor (pictured with partner Dee Devlin) subsequently appealed against the decision
McGregor was also seeking to introduce new evidence, which included allegations that Ms Hand was beaten by her then-partner on the evening she claimed she had been raped by the fighter.
McGregor said new evidence had come from Samantha O’Reilly and Steven Cummins, who lived across the street from Ms Hand and her then-partner Stephen Redmond at the time.
He said Ms O’Reilly had now alleged she saw a ‘heated row’ from her upstairs window on the night of December 9, 2018. He said she alleged Ms Hand was punched and kicked by Mr Redmond on the ground.
Meanwhile, Mr Cummins claimed he did not see what had happened, but that in the night he was woken by screams and shouts from Ms Hand’s house.
McGregor’s legal team has suggested this explained the serious bruising on Ms Hand’s body when she was taken by ambulance to hospital.
McGregor has always denied causing the bruising, which was a significant feature of the civil trial, but could not offer a plausible alternative explanation.
However, this new evidence was dramatically withdrawn at the beginning of the appeal on Tuesday, despite the couple having previously revealed their evidence in a sworn affidavit.
Ms Hand has previously debunked the claims, labelling them ‘lies’ and was prepared to be cross-examined about the matter.
In the appeal, McGregor wanted to introduce new evidence, but it was dramatically withdrawn
Ms Hand’s lawyer urged the court to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions
Her lawyer also hit out at McGregor in regards to the evidence that was dropped and claimed his client was due an apology for being ‘put through the wringer’.
He then alleged on Wednesday that the proposed evidence, which had been picked up and circulated in various media reports, had only been done to undermine Ms Hand’s reputation.
As a result, he suggested that ‘perjury’ may have occurred and the three judges subsequently agreed to his request to refer documentation to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The DPP is the head of the prosecuting authority in several jurisdictions and one of their key roles is to oversee the conduct of criminal proceedings.
They will now investigate and examine whether ‘perjury’ has taken place and anyone found guilty of that could be criminally prosecuted.
However, McGregor’s legal team claimed the withdrawal came because there would be no way to correlate the evidence and also that other supporting material they would be keen to introduce wouldn’t be admissible.
Despite the explanation, judges were left confused and attempted to gain further clarity over the decision.
One claimed they didn’t understand why it had been withdrawn and another admitted they had been left ‘bemused’.
A verdict on McGregor’s appeal is expected to be reached at a later date.
