Prosecutors have explained that the reason they did not bring a criminal case against Conor McGregor was in part because of the ‘strength of evidence’ from his rape accuser Nikita Hand considering how much alcohol and drugs she had consumed.
McGregor, 36, faced an accusation that he ‘brutally raped and battered’ Nikita Hand, 35, at a hotel in south Dublin in December 2018.
After deliberating for six hours and 10 minutes, the jury returned with their verdicts in civil court yesterday afternoon, and awarded Ms Hand nearly €250,000.
She separately lost her lawsuit against Conor McGregor’s friend, James Lawrence, who she also accused of assaulting her as well on the same night out.
However, questions have been raised as to why the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) recommended not to bring criminals charges against McGregor and Lawrence in 2020.
The reason was outlined to the jury during the case claiming that a ‘very high standard of proof’ would be needed and things such as the reliability and consistency of witnesses, the fact that Ms Hand had no recollection of having sex with Lawrence, the amount of alcohol and drugs she consumed, and her demeanour in CCTV footage were all factors that led to their decision.
McGregor, 36, faced an accusation that he ‘brutally raped and battered’ Nikita Hand (above), 35, at a hotel in south Dublin in December 2018
After deliberating for six hours and 10 minutes, the jury returned with their verdicts in civil court yesterday afternoon, and awarded Ms Hand nearly €250,000. Pictured: Conor McGregor leaves he High Court with his girlfriend Dee Devlin
The police file was twice, personally, reviewed by the then DPP Claire Loftus, but both times the same conclusion was reached; that they would not be able ‘to prove beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime was committed.
A letter from the DPP’s office on August 7, 2020, stated that the police file contained statements of evidence, a sexual assault treatment unit report, reports from Forensic Science Ireland, CCTV from various locations, records obtained from the hotel, mobile phone records, photographs and cautioned interviews with suspects.
It also made it clear that the job of the Office of the DPP was to ascertain if there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction based on the available evidence.
‘We considered a number of offences, among which were rape and assault causing harm.’
It said the file was considered by a lawyer and that advice was also sought from a senior counsel with considerable experience of criminal cases. There was also a review by the director herself.
Both McGregor and Lawrence were identified and taken into consideration to determine if there was sufficient evidence to prosecute either of them, including examining available evidence, including the admissibility of evidence, and the sufficiency and strength of the evidence that would be presented at trial.
The letter read: ‘The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect did it. The suspect does not have to prove their innocence.’
Ms Hand disputed this decision in a letter from August 20, 2020, which she wrote with the assistance of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, saying: ‘I am very unhappy. I feel I am being treated differently from other victims because one of the accused is a famous person.’
Adding that she believed she had not been given ‘any real reasons’ for criminal action to not be brought.
James Lawrence, co-defendant of Conor McGregor, outside the High Court in Dublin on Thursday
Ms Hand joined family and supporters and said she felt vindicated by the outcome
Mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor and partner Dee Devlin leave the High Court
Mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor and partner Dee Devlin and mother Margaret outside the High Court in Dublin, November 22, 2024
The DPP responded with a second letter on November 3 2020, which said that the case had been reviewed personally by Ms Loftus and the decision to not bring criminal charges ‘was correct and should stand’.
It said the case was ‘a very complex one to decide on for various reasons’, adding that the identity of one of the suspects had no bearing on their decision.
Ms Hand was told that the extent to which the evidence of witnesses was consistent and reliable was considered, as well as whether details in the evidence could be corroborated independently.
‘One significant factor in this case was the existence of a second suspect who claims to have had sexual intercourse with you after you say you were raped by the first suspect,’ the letter said.
Mr McGregor was the first suspect and Mr Lawrence the second suspect.
‘As you know, you have no recollection of intercourse with the second suspect and have stated that if sex had taken place it would not have been consensual,’ the letter continued.
‘You also described in your statement the amount of alcohol and drugs you had consumed.
‘The CCTV from the hotel as well as relevant witness statements from hotel staff and a taxi driver were considered.
‘That evidence would not in general tend to support a prosecution in respect of the second suspect and also had relevance to the overall strength of the evidence with respect to the first suspect.
‘It is not a question of who we as prosecutors believe.
‘Our job is to assess whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction on the basis of all of the evidence.
‘The director concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the conviction of either suspect in this case.’
McGregor previously told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand
McGregor has since vowed to appeal the decision – saying he was ‘disappointed’ and ‘focused on my future’
The total amount of damages awarded to Ms Hand by the jury was €248,603.60 (£206,621.91).
Nikita Hand said she hoped her case will remind victims of assault to keep ‘pushing forward for justice’, and show her daughter, Freya, ‘that you can stand up for yourself if something happens to you no matter who the person is and justice will be served’.
She said: ‘I hope my story is a reminder that no matter how afraid you might be: Speak up, you have a voice and keep on fighting for justice.
‘I know this has impacted not only my life, my daughter’s, my family and friends tremendously.
‘It’s something that I’ll never forget for the rest of my life.
‘Now that justice has been served, I can now try and move on and look forward to the future with my family and friends and daughter.’
Asked if she felt vindicated following the jury’s decision, she said: ‘Yes, I do. Thank you.’
McGregor has vowed to appeal the decision on social media – saying he was ‘disappointed’ and ‘focused on my future’.
In a now-deleted post, McGregor said: ‘I will be appealing yesterday’s decision. The judge’s instruction and the modest award given was for assault, not for aggravated or exemplary damages.
‘I am disappointed that the jury did not hear all the evidence that the DPP reviewed. I am with my family now, focused on my future. Thank you to all my support worldwide.’