Conor McGregor takes to Instagram with 'never settle with blackmailers' posts
Were Verdict Subsequently Hand, Instagram Lawless/pa Reference Of Assaulted Media Social That Wire The File Made That In Mcgregor’s He Nikita Picture: In Wake The Had Deleted Account Had Case Numerous To The Brian Posts
Conor McGregor has again taken to Instagram to criticise the media and also wrote “never settle with blackmailers” in a series of early-morning posts.
The MMA fighter posted the “blackmailers” message alongside a clip of a discussion of the case of allegations of rape made against hip-hop star Jay Z.
McGregor, who was found civilly liable in the High Court for the assault of Nikita Hand in a Dublin hotel in 2018, has since deleted the post referring to “blackmailers” but comments about the press were still online just before 11am on Tuesday.
“Who gives a fuck about the fake press,” a story on his Instagram account read, with the following story adding “fight, fight, fight”.
The words “fight, fight, fight” have also been used by US president-elect Donald Trump as the name of his new fragrance line.
Last week, Mr Justice Alexander Owens ruled McGregor must pay Ms Hand’s costs arising from the case. Furthermore, he ruled no award should be made against Ms Hand to pay the costs of James Lawrence, who was also accused of assaulting her in the Beacon Hotel in December 2018.
While a jury determined McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand, it did not find that Mr Lawrence had done so.
The jury awarded Ms Hand damages of just under €250,000 as part of its verdict.
In the wake of the verdict, McGregor’s Instagram account had made reference to the case in numerous social media posts that were subsequently deleted.
He made reference to a “kangaroo court”, and accused Ms Hand of telling lies. He said it was “deplorable” what had happened and said the High Court was a “court of feeling and opinion, brainwashed into people via the mainstream media”.
He also indicated “we are not done yet” and that he would appeal the verdict.
The issue of his social media postings were raised at the costs hearing last week.
John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, said the posts were a “direct insult” to the jury and had the effect of “scandalising the court”.
Remy Farrell SC, for McGregor, told the court the post-trial social media should not be taken into consideration as aggravating behaviour, as many litigants express “unhappiness” with court verdicts.
Mr Justice Owens indicated he had not yet decided whether to take further action over Mr McGregor’s posts but said there might be proceedings which could result in a finding of contempt of court.
“He’s a very rich man, and can well afford to pay a fine,” the judge said.
He said posts that were an attack on a jury cannot be tolerated, and if McGregor did post those messages to social media, it was “highly irresponsible”.
While it can be the case that such remarks go “unresponded to”, that may not happen in this case.
Mr Farrell indicated his client would be appealing the ruling of the court, to which Mr Justice Owens replied he was aware of this as McGregor had “said it in his post”.
The case has been listed for mention again on Thursday, January 16, 2025.