Conor McGregor A woman was subjected to a “savage” attack in a Dublin hotel and was a “devious coward” who did not have the “decency” to admit what she had done, a High Court jury has been told.

Senior barrister John Gordon said there was no shortage of irrefutable evidence that Nikita Hand was held in a “chokehold” by Mr McGregor and then “basically submitted” to him at the Beacon Hotel on December 9, 2018.

She said the romp played a central role in Mr McGregor gaining “control” of her and would be etched in her memory for the rest of the days of her life.

Ms Hand said she sought medical evidence, including from a paramedic who described the bruising on her body as one of the worst she had ever seen. Another doctor, who examined her in the Rotunda hospital sexual assault unit the day after the alleged assault, said it was one of the worst cases he had experienced and that he had never had to deal with a case where a tampon was shoved into a woman’s vagina before.

“Somebody did this, it happened at the Beacon Hotel, it was Mr McGregor,” Mr Gordon said.

Mr McGregor had subjected her to a violent attack and then tried to “escape” it by suggesting her injuries were probably inflicted by someone else or had been caused by her “swan diving” into the hotel bathroom or being outside. The lawyer said he was partying for a few days.

The “more lies” Mr. McGregor’s case gets, the “more exaggerated and outrageous” it becomes, all underscoring the jury’s need to vindicate and compensate Ms. Hand. “You can tell fact from fiction,” he said.

Ms Hand said she “has to live with this for the rest of her days and will always be a stigmatized woman for standing up to Conor McGregor.”

The lawyer said the jury could assume that James Lawrence, who Ms Hand also prosecuted, was “in cahoots” with Mr McGregor.

The barrister said Mr Lawrence made a statement after Mr McGregor was interviewed by gardaí in January 2019 about Ms Hand’s alleged rape by Mr McGregor. Mr Lawrence had said he went to lawyers, the same lawyer as Mr McGregor, within two or three days of the alleged attack. The lawyer said the jury heard that Mr. McGregor had paid all his legal fees.

“We can therefore assume that Mr. Lawrence was in cahoots with Mr. McGregor from the beginning,” he said. Mr Lawrence “threw a grenade” by saying he also had sex with Ms Hand at the hotel, saying in his statement that he had “soft” sex.

Mr Gordon said the word “soft” was thrown in to distract Mr Lawrence from the fact that Ms Hand had been badly beaten and to confuse the narrative, making her seem like “an even bigger bitch”.

He was making his closing speech on behalf of Ms Hand at the end of her claim for damages against Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence, of Rafter’s Road, Drimnagh, over allegations of sexual assault against her at the hotel.

Both men denied her allegations and gave evidence that they had consensual sex with Ms Hand.

Closing arguments were made on behalf of both men on Tuesday, after which Mr. Gordon closed the case on behalf of Ms. Hand. Mr Justice Alexander Owens then proceeded to charge the jury on the law and will continue his charge on Wednesday.

In his speech, Mr Gordon told the jury they had seen a lot of evidence over the eight days, a lot of “annoyance”, “anger”, “sassy remarks” and “serial lies”.

He said Mr McGregor’s barrister Remy Farrell had urged the jury to focus on “islets” of evidence in the case, including CCTV evidence.

Mr Gordon said this referred to pieces of evidence considered absolutely irrefutable from which the jury would form its assessment of the case as a whole.

He said Mr Farrell pointed to CCTV evidence but although cameras did not lie, they did not always tell the full story.

Using his common sense, he suggested that it would have been obvious to the jury that Ms. Hand was “not in a good place” at the hotel.

He said there was a “rock” in the middle of the case that both defendants walked around. The problem is that on the evening of December 9, 2018, Ms Hand was badly beaten and the best Mr McGregor could deduce was that there were inconsistencies and lies regarding his then partner.

Mr McGregor initially appeared to claim it was just fun, “athletic” sex, but said he changed his story and presented evidence including that there was no tampon. There was even “a little excursion into the possibility of a third man.”

Mr McGregor clearly thought that as the trial approached there would be an issue about the tampon and the severity of Ms Hand’s injuries.

The barrister referred to Ms Hand’s first interview with Gardaí on January 5, 2019, and said she conducted a further interview in February after she first became aware that Mr Lawrence had said he had sex with her.

Meanwhile, Mr McGregor held discussions with gardaí and was shown most of the CCTV and photographs of his injuries during this time, the barrister said.

In an interview on January 18, 2019, Mr. McGregor gave a statement stating that he was shocked by the injuries, that he did not cause them and that he assumed someone else did it. It was at this point, Mr. McGregor said, that “for the first time he had to confront what he had done because he did it and what he did was brutal.”

The court had been giving “insipid” statements for some time, but at one point “the mask fell off, she lost her temper” and the court witnessed a “barrage of insults” directed at Ms Hand from across the courtroom. “What does this say about Mr. McGregor?” he asked.

Counsel said Ms Hand had stated that she would not have sex during her period and that she would not have sex with a tampon on, and that the balance of probabilities applied.

He said Mr McGregor “won’t take no for an answer”.

Mr McGregor had taken her to the hotel, booked several hours in advance by his driver, while Krystle was at the nightclub with her friends, including two girls. The club continued until 7am when the girls decided to go home so he took one of them to Clontarf.

“She was here at 7.30, the suite was booked but the girl wasn’t there.”

The lawyer said that was why Ms Hand said she was surprised to hear from Mr McGregor so late. “That’s because it wasn’t in the original plan, it was the replacement.”

The jury could reasonably have concluded that the man’s intention was to have sex and that his objections to sometimes staying in hotels to rest and perhaps going to the gym were “ridiculous, ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.”

“Thank goodness the jury had the common sense to realize that they were sold a puppy by this arrogant man.”

He said there was a body of corroborating and professional evidence surrounding the basic facts, all of which corroborated Ms Hand’s story, what happened to her and the effects it had on her.

His GP had no doubt he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and an experienced vocational assessor said he could not return to the job he was doing.

Dr. is one of the country’s leading psychiatrists, having handled more than 5,000 cases. Ann Leader said Ms. Hand suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The cause of PTSD, a violent attack, was not questioned in court.

Mr Lawrence said he believed Mr McGregor was not a buffer. The barrister said Mr McGregor had made the cornerstone of his evidence that there was no tampon and that it had to be a lie.

“Instead of calling Ms. Hand a liar, the liar is Mr. McGregor and he does not have the courage and decency to admit what he did,” he said. “This is a man who lives with the media and grows up with the media. If he were a man, he would apologize to my client for what he did to her. “He is not a man, he is a coward, a sneaky coward, and you must treat him as he is.”

The lawyer said there was plenty of corroborating evidence that Mr. McGregor had given him a hard time and that he had in fact told him “now you know how I feel in the Octagon” after he surrendered.

The lawyer said Mr McGregor accepted that he was beaten and strangled by his opponent two months ago and that he was forced to surrender and lose the fight.

“You can imagine what was going through Mr. McGregor’s mind when he said he was a bit angry and that he would go hell or high water for the pain of it,” the lawyer said. The idea that he made up this story a few hours later was implausible.

Of course, Ms Hand’s story was “all over the place”, saying she was in a terrible situation and suffering from a fragmented memory.

Whatever the jury thought of Ms. Hand’s social habits, “one thing you know is that she was brave,” he said.

Ms Hand was very disappointed that the DPP decided not to prosecute her complaints, but did not make any criticism of the DPP. This case involved a completely different process, but the jury will understand why he was disappointed.

However, after this decision, he instructed the lawyers to file this lawsuit. This was and remains his only way to prove himself right.

Mr McGregor’s side argued it was about compensation, not revenge, but said this was wrong.

He said that the abuse did not only happen at the hotel, but continued.

The jury had previously been asked to decide the case on the evidence, not on whether they might “love” or “hate” Mr McGregor.

Remy Farrell SC, in his closing address for Mr McGregor, said it was “absolutely vital” that they make a decision in accordance with the evidence and not because of their gut reaction or emotion or because they may not like Mr McGregor.

Mr Farrell said Mr McGregor was “hard to avoid” and had “strong views, some people loved him, some didn’t”.

He said the case was also not about “justification.” He said the jury had been informed of the DPP’s decision not to prosecute and there had been a suggestion that the court was the only place where he could get vindication. He said the DPP’s opinion did not matter and neither did anyone else’s opinion.

He said Ms Hand had told “persistent” lies and “absolute lies” about a variety of matters before, during and after the events at the Beacon Hotel.

Perhaps the most significant lie emerges from a message Ms Hand sent to her boyfriend at 6.28pm following the alleged rape, saying “everything is great, I’m so drunk…”

Closing the case for Mr Lawrence this afternoon, John Fitzgerald SC said many features of Mr McGregor’s case matched those of his client.

One important difference was that Mr. McGregor was well-known, he said.

Mr. Lawrence here has none of Mr. McGregor’s fame, perhaps even his notoriety. Mr Lawrence has spent 35 years in “relative obscurity” and will likely want to return to that after this case.

Mr Lawrence has the right to be treated equally with Mr McGregor; because they shouldn’t be judged based on what they are or what juries think about sexual assault cases, cocaine use, people cheating on their partners, and 36 hour out cases. “benders,” he said. They have to decide the case based on the evidence.