Jury to resume deliberations in McGregor case today

The jury in the action taken against mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor, who is accused of raping a woman in a Dublin hotel six years ago, will resume its deliberations today.

Nikita Hand, 35, has sued Mr McGregor and his friend James Lawrence for damages, claiming they raped her in the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford on 9 December 2018.

Both men deny the claims. They each say they had consensual sex with Ms Hand on the day in question.

The jury of eight women and four men has been given an issue paper and must answer a number of questions.

Question one asks: "Did Conor McGregor assault Nikita Hand?"

If they answer no to this question, then that is the end of the case against Mr McGregor. If they answer yes, then they go on to consider damages.

In Mr McGregor's case, they must assess figures for general damages and special damages, as well as aggravated and punitive damages if they choose to award damages under those categories.

A figure for damages for medical expenses - under special damages - has been agreed between the parties, but the jurors are free to decide on their own awards in the other categories.

The second question on the issue paper asks if James Lawrence assaulted Nikita Hand.

Again, if the answer is no, then the case against him ends.

If the answer is yes, then they must assess damages to be paid on behalf of Mr Lawrence.

In his case, the jury must assess damages under the categories of general, aggravated and punitive damages.

Mr Justice Alexander Owens told them they must assess each man separately and that a yes or no answer in relation to one man did not mean they should give the same answer in relation to the other man.

In his summing up, the judge told the jury that if they found Ms Hand had been raped, they should award her substantial damages - as rape was a very serious matter.

He said damages should be awarded to take account of a person’s pain and suffering and also to acknowledge the wrong they had suffered.

Aggravated damages should be awarded if there was a level of violence or as a result of the attitude of the perpetrator, including a refusal to apologise or an attack on the victim’s character.

He said the jury should not "double count" the same issues when assessing general and aggravated damages.

The judge told the jury that punitive or exemplary damages were at a different level and marked a "particular disapproval" by them of the defendant’s conduct in all the circumstances - outrageous conduct that should be publicly seen to be punished.

He said they should have a sound basis for awarding such damages.

He described aggravated damages as being awarded for conduct which shocked the plaintiff, while exemplary damages were awarded to punish the defendant.

He said punitive damages must be awarded for something really serious. He said they were entitled to regard rape seriously and they should use their good sense.

He told the jury they should assume the Court of Appeal was looking over their shoulder when they assessed the amounts for damages, as if they had good reasons for their decision, it was "less likely to go wrong".

He reminded them that the onus of proof was on the plaintiff, the standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities and they should look at all the evidence.

A juror had told the judge that they had to leave at 4pm so deliberations ended at that stage and will resume this morning.