Judge claims McGregor "seeking to relitigate in court of public opinion" with CCTV

The High Court in Dublin has ordered Conor McGregor not to share CCTV footage from the civil rape trial against him, following claims the MMA fighter was "seeking to relitigate in the court of public opinion."

Judge Alexander Owens said there was a "demonstrable risk" and "danger" that the material would be published online, and ordered McGregor to return or delete all the copies he has.

He also ordered that McGregor, whom he described as "one of the wealthiest men in the country," immediately pay Nikita Hand €100,000 of the damages she won, and €200,000 towards the €1.3m legal bill.

Ms. Hand, who won her High Court claim that she was raped by the fighter, was said to be alarmed by comments made by McGregor’s Italian business partner, suggesting the video would be released this month.

Her barrister, Ray Boland, said on Thursday that it was clear McGregor intended to publish the CCTV "with a view to undermining and discrediting the verdict of the jury."

He was also critical of posts on social media made by McGregor in the wake of the verdict, calling Ms. Hand a "liar" and referring to a "kangaroo court."

"Mr. McGregor is seeking to relitigate in the court of public opinion, using or abusing all his considerable number of social media followers," Mr. Boland said.

The court also heard on Thursday confirmation that McGregor intends to appeal the verdict.

Ms. Hand was awarded almost a quarter of a million euro in damages by a civil jury, who found she had been assaulted by McGregor in the penthouse of the Beacon Hotel in Dublin.

What was on the CCTV footage?

During the high-profile case last November, the jurors had seen CCTV evidence showing Ms. Hand, McGregor, and their friends Danielle Kealy and James Lawrence in the hotel car park and lift on the day the assault took place, December 9, 2018.

During Ms. Hand’s cross-examination, McGregor’s barrister had suggested that the CCTV evidence showed her kissing McGregor and another man at around the time of the alleged rape.

She replied: "I don’t remember what we were doing or saying. It is very hard to watch…

"I see a very vulnerable woman, a drunk woman who did not know what she was doing, who should have been looked after, who should have been taken home in that state."

She said she had been brutally raped and battered, and that McGregor would not take "no" for an answer.

Nikita Hand at the High Court in Dublin during the civil trial. (RollingNews.ie)

Italian businessman’s claims

The court heard on Thursday that Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, McGregor’s Italian stout distributor, had stated on Instagram that sales of the drink would "positively explode" when the CCTV footage was released.

Judge Owens said: "It appears to me McGregor has engaged in irresponsible comment – in which he has called her a liar and attacked the verdict of the jury.

"The facts are clear. Nikita Hand sued Mr. McGregor, the jury determined Conor McGregor raped Ms. Hand at the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford, Dublin. That issue has been conclusively determined against Mr. McGregor.

"That will remain until such time as he can persuade a superior court to set aside the verdict and order a new trial."

He said it was not open to McGregor to fire up social media by "leaking bits and pieces of material that might suit his case," or by using "surrogates" to spread his views.

He said: "He doesn’t get another run of the case by throwing out material in the public arena."

Gross breach of Ms. Hand’s privacy

The judge said that to release the CCTV would be a breach of the terms on which the footage was given to him pre-trial, would constitute a contempt of court, and would be a "gross breach of Ms Hand’s right to privacy."

Neither Ms. Hand nor McGregor were in court on Thursday. However, Remy Farrell, McGregor’s barrister, said the injunction application was unwarranted.

He confirmed that McGregor had a copy of the CCTV evidence, which he had viewed at home to prepare for the trial.

He said the CCTV evidence had been obtained from the gardaí solely for the purpose of the case, with an undertaking that it would not be shared elsewhere.

Judge Alexander Owens said that if the CCTV evidence was shared online, it would quickly travel to the "furthest corner of the Internet," and would be used "for the purpose of influencing."

If the material was shared, it could potentially influence a new jury, should McGregor succeed in his appeal and have the case reheard, he noted.

He asked how such a jury could be expected to hear a case fairly "with all this swinging out on the Internet."

Grounds for McGregor’s appeal

Mr. Farrell said the grounds for McGregor’s appeal were in the process of being finalised.

However, he did outline two potential grounds. The first, he said, related to legal discussions in the absence of the jury, concerning McGregor’s use of the phrase "no comment" when questioned by gardaí about the alleged assault.

Judge Owens replied: "You’ve no hope in relation to that, in my opinion."

Mr. Farrell replied that it was "not ideal" to have to outline an appeal to the same judge who heard the original case, and said he believed the judge’s response was "disrespectful."

He said the second potential ground of appeal related to the judge’s decision to reject suggestions from both sides that "sexual assault" should appear on the issue paper given to the jury.

Instead, the jury was asked to give their verdict on assault alone. Mr. Farrell said this had an effect on the interpretation of the verdict.

Judge Owens indicated that he would also dismiss that argument.

Regarding McGregor’s social media statements, which were alleged to have "scandalised the court," Mr. Farrell said it was not unlawful to question a court judgment.

"There may be a contempt in the way you go about it. It’s a question of tone, and the manner in which one expresses it," he said.

Judge’s ruling

Judge Owens said he would not take any further action over the posts, saying they were a "distraction" which would only serve to ensure McGregor remained in the news cycle.

However, he said it would be open to Ms. Hand to sue for defamation if further claims such as her being a "liar" were written about her.

Judge Owens said he would put a stay on the full payment of the damages to Nikita, pending the outcome of the appeal, providing McGregor paid her €100,000 immediately.

He said McGregor should also pay €200,000 towards legal costs.

He listed the case for mention again on February 12, by which time McGregor must make a sworn statement, detailing the steps he has taken to return or delete the footage, and to have it sent back by anyone he may have forwarded it to, such as Mr. Rapisarda.

*This article was originally published on Extra.ie.