Conor McGregor rape accuser ‘a marked woman’ for standing up to ‘devious coward’ UFC fighter, civil case jury told
COUNSEL for a woman suing Conor McGregor for damages over an alleged rape has told a jury that the MMA star is a “devious coward” and “not a man”.
In his closing speech at the High Court, John Gordon SC told the jury that the “distasteful and dishonest testimony” of Mr McGregor had “continued” the “abuse” of the plaintiff Nikita Hand.
Mr Gordon told the jury that Mr McGregor was an “arrogant coward” who should have apologised to Ms Hand for what he did and described his client as a woman of courage who had stood up.
Mr Gordon said that Mr McGregor had “changed his story” during the trial while his client had been consistent in her version of events.
During the trial, Mr McGregor took the stand in his own defence, telling the jury that he had “consensual” sex with Ms Hand in a hotel penthouse, which he described as “enthusiastic, athletic, prolonged and vigorous” and carried out in a “multitude” of positions.
Ms Hand, who also goes by Ni Laimhin, alleges that Mr McGregor – once the highest-earning sportsperson in the world – “brutally raped and battered” her in a Dublin hotel penthouse six years ago.
Ms Hand, a former hair colourist, is seeking damages from Mr McGregor and James Lawrence, of Rafter’s Road, Drimnagh, Dublin 12, arising from the events of December 9, 2018, at the penthouse suite of the Beacon hotel in Dublin.
Mr Lawrence claims that he twice had consensual sex with Ms Hand after Mr McGregor left the hotel. Ms Hand said that Mr Lawrence’s claim of consensual sex is “lies”.
Both Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence deny the allegations.
In his closing speech, Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, said Ms Hand was “well able to lie” and had been “happy, happy, happy” throughout 8 and 9 of December, 2019.
However, he said that when she had to go home to “face the music”, that was when the allegations began.
Mr Gordon said the jury should use their own common sense in assessing the evidence and it was clear that Ms Hand was not in good shape on the night.
“My client was beaten up, badly beaten up,” said Mr Gordon.
He added: “The best that they can come up with is inconsistencies and lies in relation to what was told to Ms Hand’s then partner.
“Mr McGregor changed his story in the course of his evidence.”
During the trial, the jury heard evidence that a tampon worn by the plaintiff on the night had to be removed by a doctor using forceps.
‘WHOLE NEW VERSION OF EVENTS’
Mr Gordon said: “Now, it’s his [Mr McGregor’s] evidence that there was no tampon, that none of this happened. There was even a little trip into the possibility of a third man being involved.”
He added that it was “obvious” that as the case approached, Mr McGregor “thought the tampon was going to be a problem” and this was why, in evidence, he claimed that there had been no tampon present in Ms Hand.
He went on to say that Mr McGregor’s and Mr Lawrence’s claim that there was no tampon was never put to Ms Hand in court because Mr McGregor did not say this to his legal team.
Mr Gordon said: “It was a whole new version of events. Rather him repeating that my client is a liar, the liar here is Mr McGregor who doesn’t have the courage or the decency to own up to what he did.
‘DEVIOUS COWARD’
“He’s not a man, he’s a devious coward and you should treat him for what he is.”
Referring to bruising on Ms Hand’s body, Mr Gordon said: “Let’s put it this way: somebody did it. It happened in the Beacon hotel. It was Mr McGregor.
“In the course of his evidence, having given very bland evidence for quite some time, the mask slipped and he [Mr McGregor] lost his temper and what did we witness? A stream of invective aimed directly at my client across the courtroom.
“What does that say about Mr McGregor? You are making a decision also on the demeanour of the respondent and how they respond in the witness box.”
‘YOU ARE BEING SOLD A PUP’
“The best that they can come up with is inconsistencies and lies in relation to what was told to Ms Hand’s then partner. Mr McGregor changed his story in the course of his evidence.”
John Gordon
Counsel said Mr McGregor “wouldn’t take no for an answer and laid his plans for sex that afternoon after 4am the previous morning” when a driver booked the hotel for him.
Mr Gordon said that Mr McGregor’s evidence was that he would use hotels to relax, eat and use the gym after a night out.
Counsel added that this was “risible”, “poppycock” and “nonsense” and that Mr McGregor had left his own gym to go into Dublin on the previous night.
“You are being sold a pup by this arrogant man,” he told the jury, describing Mr McGregor’s behaviour as “appalling”.
ATTEMPT TO ‘CONFUSE THE NARRATIVE’
Counsel said there was a “litany” of unchallenged corroborative, professional and medical evidence regarding Ms Hand’s injuries.
Mr Gordon said Ms Hand suffered a violent assault but that Mr McGregor was “throwing as much dust in the eyes of the jury as he possibly could”.
Counsel said Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence had worked in “cahoots”, that they used the same legal firm and that Mr McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence’s legal fees.
He said both men gave evidence in an attempt “to confuse the narrative to make her out to be an even bigger ‘hussy’ than they are already trying to say she is”.
“He’s not a man, he’s a devious coward and you should treat him for what he is.”
John Gordon
Mr Gordon said Ms Hand had been put in a stranglehold by Mr McGregor during the alleged rape as he “took control” over her.
Counsel said that this “will stay embedded in her memory for the rest of her life”.
Counsel said Mr McGregor lost a fight in Las Vegas two months before the alleged rape and “come hell or high water” he was going to take this out on her.
Mr Gordon said that whatever the jury thinks of Ms Hand’s social habits on the night, “she has courage; she has the courage to see it through”.
‘MARKED WOMAN’
He added: “If anyone deserves to be vindicated it is my client. The abuse didn’t just happen in the hotel, it continued in the garda interviews [of the two men], continued in the pleadings, throughout the hearing, when you were subjected to arrogant, distasteful and dishonest testimony of the defendant.
“The abuse [of Ms Hand] hasn’t ended, its continued.
“Vindication is a huge step but it doesn’t change what happened and that will live with her for the rest of her days. She will always be a marked woman because she stood up.”
Mr Justice Alex Owens has begun his charge to a jury of eight women and four men and the trial continues on Wednesday.