Conor McGregor

[David McKeown]

I think the idea that the courts were being weaponised with lies against a victim has them enraged.
Would the barrister/ solicitor be in trouble or are they acting in good faith based on new testimony from members of the public. I would have thought they would need to interogate the pair of them and it wouldn't be so late in the day that we learn that their bedroom window wasn't even facing Nikita Hand's house!

I doubt McGregor was directly involved (as in big bag of cash) but him and all those in his sphere are so used to doing what they want that they presume they will get away with it.

Like have the lads who stabbed the partner been caught or where is that investigation?

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/1122/1482471-nikita-hand-house-court/

It's not unusual to not speak to all witness until close to a trial date or even on the morning of trial. Equally it's not unusual for a witness/defendant to present differently in advance of a hearing versus on the day. Only at that stage can you really assess the value of a witness. 

However evidence has to be gathered in advance and you can't ambush the other side.

So what happens is the affidavit will have been taken and sworn then lodged the person making the affidavit will have been warned about the truth of same. Some or all of the lawyers involved would likely have then spoken to them in advance of the hearing. Then again on the morning. Then at that stage further advice will be provided about the value in leading certain evidence. There's any number of reasons why after doing that parts of an appeal may be abandoned and not all of them are we think these people are lying.

The views of the client may have changed, they may have taken legal advice on board better etc etc. Ultimately counsel can not mislead the Court as that's who their duty is to but at the same time they act on instruction.

So I know one of the Senior Counsel in the case quite well. There is no chance he would have taken part in anything untoward and neither would the others. So no counsel/solicitors are not at fault as far as I can see in this case but of course I could be wrong.

All that said I see McGregor has highly criticised his lawyers today.

Once the couple made their affidavit about the supposed ruckus in Nikita's home, is it so that regardless of them not turning up to testify, that affidavit can be subject to investigative scrutiny as to the truth of its contents -  as in false testimony? They can't just withdraw the affidavit before the court case begins?

Should Nikita not wait for the results of such an investigation before suing the couple? or in any event can her legal team just proceed and attempt to satisfy a civil court that the couple lied?

It's complicated. Affidavits are confidential until they are opened in court. My understanding is these affidavits were opened at an early preliminary hearing. Hand would be entitled to sue from that stage. She would also be able to sue in respect of any public pronouncements of same. I haven't paid enough attention to the exact timeline but I don't see any issue with commencing proceedings now.

A parallel criminal proceeding would help if successful but hurt if unsuccessful.

[Main Street]

Thanks David, informative as always.

[Truthsayer]

How deluded is this maggot? Starting a petition to change the rules so he can run for President....
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/conor-mcgregor-resorts-petition-hoping-202027047.html

[Rossfan]

Thick rapist doesn't realise it needs a Referendum.

[Main Street]

On the RTE news website there's an excellent account by Orla O'Donnell, RTE Legal Affairs Correspondent, on last week's legal proceedings in McGregor case. I think Justice O'Moore should run for president.

This week, the former MMA fighter Conor McGregor lost his appeal against a High Court jury's finding that he raped Nikita Hand.

Some snips from the article

Nikita had prevailed in "one of the most hard fought trials of recent years". But her reputation had continued to be attacked by Mr McGregor, not only in his social media posts but in his tactics in this appeal.
If Mr McGregor won, it would mean Nikita Hand would have to go through a high-profile civil trial all over again and there was a further risk for her: If Mr McGregor's friend, James Lawrence, won his separate appeal over the refusal to award him his legal costs, then her award of just under €250,000 in damages could be wiped out and she could end up financially ruined.

The court's decision was given by Mr Justice Brian O'Moore. He said he would not read it all out, but it still took more than an hour to go through the issues.

For Ms Hand, it was a rollercoaster.

At times, the outcome looked bleak. It was only when the court made its ruling on the final issue of James Lawrence's costs, that the full extent of her vindication became clear.

Mr Justice O'Moore dealt extensively with Mr McGregor's application to introduce "new evidence" which had "come to light" since the trial conclude
He said the affidavits were "very comprehensive and clear" and had been sworn in January this year.

Neither Ms O'Reilly nor Mr Cummins said they had any difficulty remembering the incident or expressed any doubt about their evidence and he said they would have been stress tested by Mr McGregor's lawyers, long before the eve of the appeal hearing.

(The article describes how the  judge went on to great length, comprehensively deconstructing the attempted stroke by McGregor to introduce that "new evidence" )

McGregor's PR executives claimed RTÉ News and others, were wrong to say the jury's verdict meant the jurors found he had raped Nikita Hand. They continued to send such emails sporadically in the following months.
The judge said the jury's verdict meant they believed Mr McGregor raped Nikita Hand, whereas Mr Lawrence gave evidence that the sex between Ms Hand and Mr McGregor was consensual.

Judge O'Moore said Ms Hand's account must have been believed by the jury and Mr Lawrence's account must have been rejected.

Therefore, he said Mr Lawrence's evidence on this issue could only be regarded as untruthful.

The court ruled that the giving of such evidence was a very serious matter and was enough on its own to deprive Mr Lawrence of his costs.
But it found another significant factor was the evidence of Mr McGregor that he had paid those costs for Mr Lawrence.
If Mr Lawrence did repay Mr McGregor then it would mean Ms Hand would have to make a payment to a man who gave inaccurate evidence about her and ultimately to the man who raped her.

This, he said, should weigh heavily with the court.

The judge also pointed out that having two sets of lawyers to cross-examine Ms Hand brought significant advantages to Mr McGregor.

Unusually Nikita was awarded 'costs at the highest level means someone will get back almost everything they have spent, including all the costs they have accrued with their own solicitor'

[Wildweasel74]

Just bringing drug testing as part of the nomination process and good character references, he be up shit creek!!

[larryin89]

How many lunatics would actually vote for him if by some miracle he got a nomination?

[Rossfan]

The 2% fascists for a start.
Then some anti establishment fuk u types.
Ben Gilroy, John Waters, Gemma O'Doherty (is she out of circulation?)...

[screenexile]

How many lunatics would actually vote for him if by some miracle he got a nomination?

If the social media bots were allowed to vote he might have a chance!

[JoG2]

How many lunatics would actually vote for him if by some miracle he got a nomination?

A Jamie Bryson type return. You have to remember, the hated filled racists spend their lives online spewing, and little else, while the vast majority dip in and out and general live a regular type life

[Armagh18]

He'd get a lot more votes than people think I reckon.

[JoG2]

He'd get a lot more votes than people think I reckon.

No he would not

[trueblue1234]

He'd get a lot more votes than people think I reckon.

Would he feck. He'd be a bigger laughing stock than he is now (if that's possible). Who, unless you've lost all grasp on reality, would vote for him?

[jmcgdoire]

He'd get a lot more votes than people think I reckon.

Would he feck. He'd be a bigger laughing stock than he is now (if that's possible). Who, unless you've lost all grasp on reality, would vote for him?

I think (sadly) plenty of people would. A lot of people thought the same about Trump in the early stages of the 2016 election and when there was a possibility he'd run again in 2024.

[trueblue1234]

He'd get a lot more votes than people think I reckon.

Would he feck. He'd be a bigger laughing stock than he is now (if that's possible). Who, unless you've lost all grasp on reality, would vote for him?

I think (sadly) plenty of people would. A lot of people thought the same about Trump in the early stages of the 2016 election and when there was a possibility he'd run again in 2024.

Naw I don't see it. IMO he would get negligible votes if he was ever able to stand. A few years ago he may have had a bit of a following. But the majority of that has dropped of. He's a sc**bag. A very unlikeable one at that.