Conor McGregor ordered not to share CCTV footage relating to rape case

Conor McGregor has been ordered by an Irish court not to share CCTV footage relating to a civil case against him, in which a jury found he had raped a woman in Dublin six years ago.

Mr McGregor also faces a 1.3 million euro (£1.1 million) bill for legal costs in the case, on top of damages of almost 250,000 euro (£207,000) which were previously awarded.

Nikita Hand, also known as Nikiti Ni Laimhin, won her claim for damages against Mr McGregor after accusing the professional fighter of raping her in a Dublin hotel in December 2018.

Ms Hand, 35, was awarded damages and costs after a three-week trial last year.

Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, told the High Court on Thursday that the bill for legal costs was about 1.3 million euro.

However, a stay was put on payment of the full amount after Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, said his client intended to appeal against the decision.

Mr Boland said Mr McGregor was “very well resourced” compared with Ms Hand, and that she had had to stop her counselling for post-traumatic stress disorder due to financial constraints.

He had sought between 20% and 50% of the costs payable now, while Mr Farrell cited examples when 10% of costs were granted pending appeal.

Justice Alexander Owens, who said Mr McGregor was “one of the wealthiest men in the country”, ordered the Dubliner to pay 100,000 euro of the damages and 200,000 euro of the legal costs now, with the remainder deferred pending appeal.

The costs was one of several matters decided in the court in Dublin on Thursday.

Lawyers for Ms Hand and Mr McGregor made separate representations relating to key CCTV evidence which showed Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel.

The material was gathered by An Garda Siochana and provided on foot of a High Court order for preparing for and litigating the civil case.

It was shown several times during the case and was the subject of media coverage.

Lawyers for Ms Hand had sought assurances that Mr McGregor would not disseminate the material after newspapers reported on social media comments that claimed the footage would be released this month.

The comments were attributed to Gabriel Ernesto Rapisardo, who Justice Owens said was a business associate of Mr McGregor.

The judge said the comments suggested the publication of the CCTV would change the view of Mr McGregor, and that “when Nikita’s video is public you will judge for yourselves the facts”.

He said Mr Rapisardo and Mr McGregor had a business relationship in alcohol sales in Italy.

Mr Boland said Mr McGregor intended to disseminate selected pieces of the evidence with a view to “undermining and discrediting” the findings of the court.

Mr Farrell said such an order was not necessary as there was already an implied undertaking that material for the case would not be misused or disseminated.

He said there was no basis for the assertion that the material had been disseminated after the verdict.

Justice Owens said it was “impossible” to read the social media posts as anything other than a suggestion that Mr Rapisardo was privy to the possibility of the material being released this month.

Mr Farrell said the basis for the application was “hearsay upon a hearsay” relating to “some lad on the internet”.

Justice Owens said he was giving a direction to make sure Mr McGregor does not engage in contempt of court, adding there had been no undertaking offered on the fighter’s behalf which would have given him assurances.

He said there was a “real and demonstrable risk” that the footage would be disseminated and, if that happened, it would be a breach of the implied undertaking not to misuse the material and would constitute civil contempt.

He added that it would also be a gross breach of Ms Hand’s privacy.

He said the material would quickly spread on the internet and reach the “furthest corners of that dark hole”.

Justice Owens said: “Such leaking would be a gross contempt of court.”

He said it was “necessary to nip all of this in the bud” and directed Mr McGregor to return ”all fobs or sticks” containing the footage to his solicitor and arrange the permanent deletion of the files from computers and phones.

The judge also directed him to make an affidavit indicating what copies had been made and how they were deleted.

Mr McGregor would be allowed to see the footage again, if necessary, under supervision at his solicitor’s office.

He was directed to retrieve the material from anyone who had received it through his actions, if that had occurred.

Justice Owens stressed that the order was not an injunction.

He also considered social media posts in which Mr McGregor was said to have “scandalised the court” after the jury’s verdict.

Mr Boland said Mr McGregor was in effect seeking to have the case litigated in the court of public opinion by “using or abusing his considerable social media following”, rather than by the jury that had “no dog in the fight”.

He said Justice Owens was correct when he asked whether Mr McGregor had alleged that Ms Hand was a liar and that the proceedings had been a “kangaroo court”.

The judge pointed out that if the appeal succeeded at a superior court, the matter would be back before another jury.

He said “surely you can’t complain” and “give out” that the other side is lying if you wanted another jury to hear the matter “with all this swinging around the internet”.

Justice Owens considered whether taking action would “only give oxygen and more publicity to this nonsense”.

However, Mr Boland said he would not see how that would act as a deterrent.

Justice Owens said Mr McGregor had engaged in “irresponsible” commentary, and had been “conclusively determined” by the jury that he raped Ms Hand.

He said it was “not open to him to make contrary claims” or use “bits and pieces” of evidence for such purposes, or to get “another run of the case” in the court of public opinion by calling Ms Hand a liar.

He said any action on defamation would be a matter for Ms Hand and for her lawyers.

He added that he would take no action on the “kangaroo court” comments as it would be a “distraction” and “only keep him in the news cycle”.

Mr McGregor was given a week to return material to his solicitor.

He was also given until February 12 to provide an affidavit to the court on steps he has taken to retrieve the material and prevent its dissemination, as well as any other application relating to the CCTV footage and other evidence.

Ms Hand and Mr McGregor were not present for Thursday’s proceedings.