Revealed: The real reason why prosecutors did not pursue criminal charges against Conor McGregor after rape accuser Nikita Hand said she was ‘very unhappy’ and felt she was ‘treated differently than other victims’

Prosecutors explained that the reason they did not pursue criminal charges against Conor McGregor was due in part to “the strength of the evidence” given how much alcohol and drugs his rape accuser Nikita Hand consumed.

McGregor, 36, was accused of ‘brutally raping and beating’ 35-year-old Nikita Hand in a hotel in south Dublin in December 2018.

After deliberating for six hours and 10 minutes, the jury returned with its verdicts in the civil court yesterday afternoon, awarding Ms Hand approximately €250,000 in damages.

He also separately lost the case he filed against Conor McGregor’s friend James Lawrence, whom he accused of attacking him on the same night.

However, questions have been raised as to why the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) recommended against bringing criminal charges against McGregor and Lawrence in 2020.

The reason for this was explained to the jury during the trial, citing issues such as the reliability and consistency of the witnesses, the fact that Ms Hand did not remember having sex with Lawrence, and the amount of evidence that a ‘very high standard of evidence’ would be needed. The amount of alcohol and drugs he consumed and his demeanor in the CCTV footage were factors that led to this decision.

McGregor, 36, was accused of ‘brutally raping and assaulting’ 35-year-old Nikita Hand (above) in a hotel in south Dublin in December 2018.

After deliberating for six hours and 10 minutes, the jury returned with its verdicts in the civil court yesterday afternoon, awarding Ms Hand approximately €250,000 in damages. Picture: Conor McGregor leaving the Supreme Court with girlfriend Dee Devlin

The police file was personally reviewed twice by the then DPP Claire Loftus, but both times the same conclusion was reached; that they cannot ‘prove beyond a reasonable doubt’ that a crime has been committed.

In a letter from the DPP office on 7 August 2020, the police file included evidence statements, a sexual assault treatment unit report, reports from Forensic Science Ireland, CCTV from various locations, records from the hotel, mobile phone records, photographs and warning interviews with the suspects.

It also made clear that the duty of the DPP Office was to determine whether there was a reasonable prospect of conviction based on the available evidence.

‘We considered a range of offences, including rape and assault causing harm.’

It was stated that the file was evaluated by a lawyer and advice was also sought from a senior lawyer with considerable experience in criminal cases. There was also a review by the director himself.

Both McGregor and Lawrence were identified and considered to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute either, including a review of the available evidence, including the admissibility of the evidence and the sufficiency and strength of the evidence to be presented at trial.

The letter said: ‘The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect did this. ‘The suspect does not need to prove his innocence.’

Ms Hand objected to this decision in a letter dated 20 August 2020, written with the help of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, saying: ‘I am very unhappy. ‘I feel that I have been treated differently than other victims because one of the defendants is a famous person.’

He added that he believed he had not been given ‘any real reason’ why criminal charges should not be brought against him.

James Lawrence, one of Conor McGregor’s co-defendants, appears before the High Court in Dublin on Thursday.

Ms Hand joined family and supporters and said she felt vindicated by the outcome

Mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor and partner Dee Devlin leave the Supreme Court

Mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor and his partner Dee Devlin and his mother Margaret outside the High Court in Dublin, 22 November 2024

The DPP responded with a second letter on 3 November 2020 stating that the case had been reviewed by Ms Loftus herself and that the decision not to lay criminal charges was ‘correct and should stand’.

Stating that the case was ‘a very complex case that needed to be decided for various reasons’, the institution added that the identity of one of the suspects had no bearing on the decision.

Ms Hand was told that consideration was given to the extent to which witnesses’ evidence was consistent and reliable, as well as whether details in the evidence could be independently corroborated.

“One of the important factors in this case was the presence of a second suspect who claimed that he had sexual intercourse with you after you said that you had been raped by the first suspect,” the letter said.

Mr McGregor was the first suspect and Mr Lawrence was the second suspect.

The letter continued: “As you know, you do not recall having sexual intercourse with the second suspect and you stated that if sexual intercourse had occurred, it would not have been consensual.”

‘You also stated in your statement the amount of alcohol and drugs you consumed.

‘In addition to the security cameras in the hotel, relevant witness statements from hotel staff and a taxi driver were also taken into account.

‘This evidence would not generally tend to support a prosecution of the second suspect and was also relevant to the overall strength of the evidence in relation to the first suspect.

‘This is not a matter of who we prosecutors believe.

‘Our job is to assess whether there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction based on all the evidence.

‘The administrator has concluded that there is no reasonable prospect of either suspect being convicted in this case.’

McGregor had previously told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand.

McGregor has since vowed to appeal the decision, saying he was “disappointed” and “focused on my future”.

The total compensation awarded to Ms Hand by the jury was €248,603.60 (£206,621.91).

Nikita Hand said she hoped her case would remind victims of assault to “keep pushing forward for justice” and show her daughter Freya that “no matter who the person is, if something happens to them, they can stand on their own feet and justice will deliver.” will be served’.

She said: ‘I hope my story reminds you that no matter how scared you are, speak up, you have a voice and keep fighting for justice.

‘I know that this has greatly affected not only my life, but also the lives of my daughter, my family and my friends.

‘This is something I will never forget for the rest of my life.

‘Now that justice has been served, I can move on and look to the future with my family, friends and daughter.’

Asked if he felt vindicated after the jury verdict, he said: ‘Yes, I do. Thank you.’

McGregor vowed to appeal the decision on social media, saying he was ‘disappointed’ and ‘focused on my future’.

In a now-deleted post, McGregor said: ‘I will be appealing yesterday’s decision. The judge’s instructions and the modest award awarded were for assault, not aggravated or exemplary damages.

‘I am disappointed that the jury did not hear all the evidence the DPP considered. I am now with my family and focused on my future. Thank you for my worldwide support.’