The appeal proceedings for Conor McGregor, the former mixed martial arts fighter, continue to draw attention as new developments unfold in the Irish courts. The case centers on McGregor’s appeal against a 2024 High Court decision that found him civilly liable for sexually assaulting Nikita Hand in a Dublin hotel in December 2018. The original verdict required McGregor to pay over €248,000 (approximately £206,000) in damages to Ms. Hand, as well as a significant portion of her legal costs.
Most Recent Updates in Conor McGregor's Trial
The most recent hearings, held at the start of July 2025, were marked by Conor McGregor’s legal team withdrawing a bid to introduce new evidence. This evidence was to come from Samantha O’Reilly and Steven Cummins, former neighbors of Ms. Hand, who claimed to have witnessed a confrontation between Ms. Hand and her ex-partner around the time of the alleged assault. Conor McGregor’s team argued that this testimony could suggest that bruising on Ms. Hand’s body may have been caused by her ex-partner rather than Conor McGregor.
The civil case stems from an incident in December 2018, when Ms. Hand alleged that McGregor assaulted her in a Dublin hotel. McGregor has consistently denied the allegations, maintaining that any encounter was consensual. The 2024 High Court jury found in favor of Ms. Hand after a three-week trial, awarding her damages and legal costs.
However, after further legal review and a new application involving expert testimony, Conor McGregor’s counsel decided to retract the request to present this evidence. The decision was announced abruptly in court, prompting visible frustration from Ms. Hand’s legal team, who argued that the late withdrawal was inappropriate and that their client had been subjected to additional stress as a result. The court permitted the withdrawal but noted dissatisfaction with the timing and handling of the matter.
Following the withdrawal of the proposed evidence, Ms. Hand’s lawyer requested that documents related to the retracted testimony be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). This request was based on concerns about possible perjury, as Ms. Hand had described the neighbors’ statements as false. The Court of Appeal agreed to refer the matter to prosecutors for further examination. McGregor’s representatives have stated that he himself is not the subject of a criminal referral at this time.
With the withdrawal of the new evidence, McGregor’s appeal now rests on several remaining legal arguments. His team contends that the original trial judge erred in allowing the jury to consider whether McGregor was liable for assault, rather than specifically for sexual assault. They also argue that the judge wrongly permitted extensive questioning about McGregor’s “no comment” responses during police interviews, which his lawyers claim prejudiced the jury. The appeal proceedings have focused on these technical aspects of the trial process.
The hearings concluded with the Court of Appeal stating that a full decision will be delivered at a later date. McGregor has not attended the appeal hearings in person. The court’s final ruling will address the legal arguments advanced by McGregor’s team and the response from Ms. Hand’s lawyers, who have urged the court to uphold the original verdict and damages award. Pending the outcome of the appeal, the order requiring McGregor to pay the full amount of Ms. Hand’s legal fees has been suspended. The case remains under close scrutiny, with the possibility of further legal action if the DPP finds grounds for pursuing perjury charges related to the withdrawn evidence.
