Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
CONOR MCGREGOR COULD be cross-examined in the High Court over a sworn statement he gave about an order not to share CCTV footage that was shown during Nikita Hand’s civil trial against him.
Last month, solicitors representing Hand requested an injunction to stop the publication of CCTV footage that was shown in court during the civil trial, following news reports alleging that the publication of video footage was imminent.
Hand’s counsel, John Gordon SC, told the High Court this morning that a statement given by McGregor about the CCTV raises “significant issues” and that he would need time to respond to it.
In November last year, McGregor was deemed liable for sexually assaulting Hand in the Beacon Hotel on 9 December 2018, with the jury in the case awarding the victim over €248,000 in damages.
In documentation relating to the request, solicitors for Hand had claimed that the publication of the CCTV would amount to a contempt of court and that the “only purpose” for doing so would be to “undermine and discredit” the outcome of the trial.
The documentation referred to McGregor and a business partner of his, Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, who runs a company which distributes McGregor’s stout in Italy.
On 5 January, Rapisarda was quoted in newspapers saying that the footage would be made public that same month.
The CCTV footage was shown several times during the civil trial and was the subject of media coverage.
At a High Court hearing last month, Mr Justice Alexander Owens ordered McGregor not to disseminate any CCTV footage that was shown during the civil trial.
He said he was satisfied that there was a “real and demonstrable risk” that McGregor would provide the CCTV footage to Rapisarda.
Mr Justice Owens also directed that McGregor return any copies of the footage or other material discovered during the course of the litigation to his solicitors and arrange for the permanent deletion of any copies he has.
He ordered McGregor to return the material to his solicitor within a week, and swear an affidavit outlining the steps he has taken to retrieve it and prevent its dissemination by 12 February.
At a brief hearing this morning, John Gordon SC, for Hand, told the High Court: “I will be saying to the court that I need some time to reply to that affidavit and consider bringing an application to cross examine the opponent,” he told the court.
Mr Justice Owens asked Remy Farrell SC, for McGregor, that the affidavit filed last month had confirmed that he would not disseminate the CCTV.
He also asked if he had “put in another [affidavit] to explain Mr McGregor’s role in relation to the Italian gentleman”, referring to Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda. Farrell said he had.
John Gordon SC, for Hand, told Mr Justice Owens that her solicitors received the affidavit yesterday afternoon.
He told the court that he intends to object that McGregor “has not complied with one aspect of the order” that the judge made, “so he’s still in breach”. He did not elaborate on what he alleges McGregor failed to comply with.
He also told the court that he intends to say that the affidavit filed last month was “entirely inadequate”, and that the affidavit received yesterday “raises further significant issues about his bona fides”.
Farrell said that if Gordon wanted more time, he was not objecting to it.
Mr Justice Owens agreed to adjourn the matter until 6 March.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say