Conor McGregor case: If jury decides woman was raped, damages should be substantial, judge says

A High Court judge has told a jury, if they decide that Conor McGregor raped a woman in a Dublin hotel, any damages awarded should be substantial, proportionate and fair.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens will continue his detailed charge to the jury on Thursday before they are sent to consider their verdict on the civil action by Nikita Hand against Mr McGregor seeking damages for assault arising from the alleged rape.
It is unclear if the judge will conclude his charge on Thursday or if it will continue into Friday.
The eight women and four men will also decide Ms Hand’s claim against James Lawrence (35), of Rafter’s Road, Drimnagh, over alleged assault of her through allegedly having sex with her without her consent in the Beacon hotel.
Both men deny the claims by the 35-year-old hair colourist and have pleaded they separately had consensual sex with Ms Hand at the hotel on December 9th, 2018.
The jury has heard Ms Hand and a work colleague Danielle Kealey were driven to the hotel with Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence in Mr McGregor’s car, arriving at 12.30pm on December 9th. CCTV showed Mr McGregor leaving with Ms Kealey about 6.15pm and Ms Hand leaving with Mr Lawrence about 10.30pm.
Ms Hand and Ms Kealey gave evidence they had been partying all the previous night and into the morning of December 9th and consumed alcohol and cocaine. Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence were separately partying in Dublin nightclubs and consumed alcohol. Mr McGregor said cocaine was also available. Mr Lawrence said he has never taken cocaine.
Ms Hand said in evidence she was raped by Mr McGregor and had no memory of having sex later with Mr Lawrence.
Mr McGregor denied rape and said he and Ms Hand had “fully consensual”, “vigorous”, “athletic” sex without using condoms. He said he was shocked when later shown photos of bruising on Ms Hand and he had not caused it.
Mr Lawrence said he had consensual sex twice with Ms Hand using condoms and had seen no marks on her other than a small bruise which he said she had pointed out to him.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens began his charge to the jury late on Tuesday and resumed it at 10am on Wednesday. Because one juror had a commitment on Wednesday afternoon, the judge adjourned the case at 1.30pm and asked the jury to return to court on Thursday morning.
In his charge, he said the jury will be asked to answer yes or no to separate questions concerning whether Mr McGregor assaulted Ms Hand and whether Mr Lawrence assaulted Ms Hand.
He told them, only if they answered yes in the case of either or both men, would they proceed to assess damages under four categories: general damages for assault; special damages in the form of medical expenses; damages for past and future loss of earnings and aggravated damages.
The purpose of damages is compensatory and damages are a matter for the jury, the judge said.
If they concluded Ms Hand was raped by Mr McGregor, she was entitled to substantial, not nominal damages, he said.
A rape is a very serious matter, rapes are “devastating” for victims, they have to live with them for the rest of their lives and rape trenches on dignity and mental health, he said.
Even if it was not proved a rape victim was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the jury could take it a victim would have to live with it for years to come, he added.
If they found Ms Hand was raped by Mr Lawrence, she was entitled to substantial damages against him even if she was unaware it had happened. They were excluded from assessing damages against Mr Lawrence for PTSD.
If they found for Ms Hand against either defendant, they should consider general damages, which are compensatory damages for the harmful impact of the rape. If they found against Mr McGregor, that would include a sum for PTSD against him.
He said aggravated damages involve sums awarded on grounds including conduct of the perpetrator which shocks the plaintiff.
Punitive or exemplary damages are a different level, marking “particular disapproval” by the jury of the defendants conduct. The jury could award punitive if they considered, for example, witnesses got together to concoct a story, including alleging a plaintiff is a gold digger.
The compensation should be appropriate to the damage inflicted and caused, the jury should act proportionately and fairly in relation to all categories of damages.
If the jury gets to the stage of awarding damages, they have to forget considerations such as that Mr McGregor is a wealthy man and Mr Lawrence is not, he said.
Earlier in his charge, the judge said the jury should look at all the evidence and decided what bits of it they accept and what they reject. They should consider whether a witness has “an axe to grind”, is withholding something or could be “more forthcoming”.
He said witnesses are “notoriously inaccurate” about time “especially when they have jar on them”.
What you are concerned with here is “not just truth and lies, but credibility and reliability”, he told the jury. Other “silent” witnesses, such as CCTV from the hotel, can be regarded as more reliable, he said. The jury should go through that, examine who is doing what and whether they appeared intoxicated or amorous.
The judge, after outlining the law on a range of matters, began setting out the evidence given by the various witnesses in the case. He will continue his outline of the evidence on Thursday.