How long McGregor could face in jail as perjury allegations referred to DPP

Disgraced MMA fighter Conor McGregor could face up to ten years in prison after allegations of perjury were referred by a court to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

At the Court of Appeal yesterday, Judge Isobel Kennedy said she would pass on material to the DPP concerning McGregor’s dropped allegation that Nikita Hand was assaulted by her own partner.

Ms. Hand, a 36-year-old mother-of-one, was awarded just under €250,000 in damages by a High Court jury last year after claiming she had been violently raped by McGregor in a Dublin hotel, fearing she would never see her children again.

Earlier this year, McGregor had said he would call fresh evidence from two of Ms. Hand’s former neighbours in Drimnagh, Samantha O’Reilly and Steven Cummins, in support of his appeal against the verdict.

The pair had signed sworn statements saying Ms. O’Reilly had seen her being physically attacked by her partner at the time, Stephen Redmond, on December 9, 2018, after she returned home from her encounter with McGregor.

The Court of Appeal heard this evidence would explain why Ms. Hand’s body was covered in bruises on the following day, when she was taken by ambulance to hospital. McGregor had claimed he had consensual sex with Ms. Hand, and that he had not caused the bruising.

However, the potential ground of appeal was abandoned at the last minute on Tuesday, after McGregor’s counsel, Mark Mulholland, said they had been unable to produce corroborating evidence from the former State pathologist for Northern Ireland, Professor Jack Crane.

A lawyer for Ms. Hand said she had responded to the suggested new evidence by saying it was "all lies" and that had now been conceded. Ms. Hand’s legal team then called for a referral to be made to the DPP, relating to alleged perjury by Ms. O’Reilly and Mr. Cummins, and alleged inducement of perjury by McGregor.

Perjury offences, including inducing someone else to commit perjury, carry a maximum penalty of a €100,000 fine or up to ten years in prison. Her barrister, John Gordon, attempted yesterday to outline exactly why the referral was needed in a further application to the Court of Appeal.

However, he was prevented from doing so after submissions from McGregor’s barrister, who said it could prejudice any potential criminal proceedings. Mr. Mulholland said: "We have been presented with several authorities and documentation, it seems was intended to be used [on Tuesday] in the cross-examination of Samantha O’Reilly.

"Of course, it’s against the backdrop where Mr Gordon was suggesting that a criminal investigation should follow on foot of her intended evidence."

He continued: "If there is to be a criminal investigation, then quite properly, these are matters to be dealt with in that forum, and should not at this juncture be opened before this court, which is the intention, with the cloak of legal privilege."

He said this was being attempted to be done by Ms. Hand’s legal team "to get on the record, for nothing more than the media at this point in time, the points Mr. Gordon would otherwise seek to make."

Mr. Mulholland said this was "wholly inappropriate." Mr. Gordon said the court had a wide discretion on how it could manage its affairs, including the abandonment of a ground of appeal.

Judge Brian O’Moore replied: "I have taken to heart the comments made by counsel for Mr McGregor, to the effect that… a prosecution could be somehow prejudiced, and that is the last thing this court, or you yourself, would want."

Judge Kennedy said the most prudent thing would be for the court to review the documents in private.

When the case resumed, Mr. Gordon clarified that he wanted the court to mark its displeasure at the way Ms. Hand had been treated by McGregor by awarding her the legal costs of the dropped application for fresh evidence at a punitively high "solicitor-client" rate.

He said he wanted the court to refer the matter to the DPP "to show the court’s concern at this apparent abuse of its own processes." He said the part of the appeal withdrawn by McGregor on Tuesday was not just an attempt to adduce further evidence, but to undermine Ms. Hand’s reputation pending the hearing of the appeal.

The fresh evidence was publicly disseminated and published widely, he said. "My client was accused of telling lies… There was a direct accusation by Ms O’Reilly," he said. He confirmed this was done in the course of Instagram messages, which had been exhibited to the court.

"So my client put in an affidavit in which she called out this, she said it was lies," Mr. Gordon said. "[Ms. Hand] was entitled to her opportunity yesterday to call that out in this court, but they withdrew the application and so prevented her from calling out… what were a series of highly disparaging and unfair criticisms," he said.

Judge Isobel Kennedy said: "We do intend to refer the matter to the [DPP], and in due course the court will notify the parties of the documentation we intend to furnish to the director."

She said she would leave the application for higher costs until the full judgment is given in McGregor’s appeal, which will be delivered at a later date.

Ms. Hand, with partner Gary Foy and mother Deborah, was in court for the hearing. McGregor was not.

*This article was originally published on Extra.ie.