Mr Farrell: "Ms Hand knew full well account she was giving made no sense if Danielle Kealy was there."

"She is jumping up, awake, thinking she is going to be gang raped. If Danielle is there surely she would've said something to Danielle. These are things that just didn't happen.

"We know that as a matter of fact. There's no suggestion (with her talking to Ms Brennan) of a blackout, of memory loss. Interestingly rather than accepting Danielle was there she says James awrence was there and she has herself reporting the rape to Jamesl.

"She says she left immediately, that the driver asked does Conor want her to leave and she says yes. Pause and think about that. We know she didn't want to go home. So again, is this just some confusion on Ms Hand's part or giving a start to finish account.

"She said she ran off, ended up getting out of the hotel, got into a taxi. So again Ms Hand is giving an actual account of the events, No memory coming or going, no waking up not remembering things. She says how she left, says where she went, so bear in mind all this evidence is before you. And when she is crossed examined on this - she says she must have been confused. Well that is one explanation, there are others."

Mr Farrell: "Recall the account she gave to Emer Brennan"

"The significance of Emer Brennan's evidence is underpinned by her own understanding of its importance. She kept a record.

"Ms Hand says she wakes up, two security guards present, she thinks she is going to be gang raped. We know in Ms Hand account she gave in evidence that could never have happened. What you have to do is contrast that with evidence Ms Hand has given of waking up remembering nothing.

"How can those two things be true. Second element what she tells Emer Brennan is Danielle Kealy is gone, gone gone. She said she looked for Danielle and Danielle wasn't there. It's quite apparent from Ms Hand's evidence that she sought to airbrush Danielle out of her evidence.

""She declined to name her when she was in the Rotunda. In Emer Brennan's house Ms Hand has not been in contact with Danielle Kealy. She does not know if her account is correct, whether Danielle heard or perceived anything might be consistent with rape.

"What is it at that stage Ms Hand knows that might make her reluctant to put Ms Kealy in the middle of her case. How could she have known early hours of the morning or whatever time it was that Danielle Kealy wasn't going to back her up?"

Mr Farrell: "The next question, what do you make of evidence in relation to Ms Hand's state late on 9th into early 10th December 2018."

"There is a concept in law known as the doctrine of recent complaint. Courts and juries are allowed to take account how a person presents, what they say.

"If someone presents distressed state immediately after a rape that consistent. You have quite a bit of evidence in this case about the plaintiff. There's a slight problem. You are in privileged position, you can actually observe the plaintiff directly yourselves on CCTV.

""It's not just in the immediate aftermath of what's she has alleged - its for hours, several hours after. You heard Mr Gordon that this was delayed shock. Those are things you're going to have to consider.

""The CCTV footage from immediately after the events she alleges or the CCTV from the evidence. Which is more indicative of what's said to have occurred."

Mr Farrell says he is going to ask questions and ask them to ask themselves did they probably happen or not.

"First question it goes back to what Mr Gordon said when he opened case. You're told case is very simple that it was a single issue of rape in case and that there was a lot of noise surrounding it. That's what you heard at very start of case. You heard evidence, do you think that's right?

"You heard all the evidence. Is that just noise. I'm talking about text messages, Danielle Kealy, James Lawrence. Is all of that just noise." He asks is the CCTV just noise too. "What would this case be if the CCTV wasn't there.

"What view would you take of the case. Would this be a civil case or would it much more likely be a criminal case considering a prosecution? Are the text messages just noise?

"Particularly the ones to her partner Ste she is lying before the events, during the events and after the events. Is that relevant from your perspective? Why is it you're told to disregard that as just noise? Is Danielle Kealy just noise.?

"The reason I put all that to you is entirety of the approach of the plaintiff is it's all very simple - she was raped, has the bruises to prove it and everything else is just a distraction.

"It's maybe useful to say this, that over last 20 30 years when courts dealing with these cases where how do you resolve issues where people say things happened or didn't happen in private, one ways court says can figure it out is identify what is called islands of facts.

"I'm talking about CCTV, texts. Build up a framework of what's not an issue to see what people are saying actually accords with that or not."

Remy Farrell SC: "This is about the evidence, the evidence, the evidence."

"Who do I want to win this case, who do I not want to win this case. Those are questions you can't ask yourself.

"I suspect you're probably going to be the hardest working jury because you're going to have to put those considerations out of your mind. You're not here to just decide what you would like the outcome to be.

"The next question then is how do you go about it, well that's up to yourselves. But I'll say this, jury's are not committees. Each one of you has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. It just means it's more probable than not. That's what it means.

"What it may mean is it may be useful for you to break down the evidence and look at specific issues. It may be helpful ask the question did such and such a thing happen - answer probably, probably not. That's the standard."

Remy Farrell SC: "I'm not here to ask you to like Mr McGregor"

"I'm simply asking you to maybe interrogate your own views. Should it matter if Mr McGregor may be someone you don't like. I ask you to work your way methodically through the evidence. Look at the CCTV, work out the texts.

"It's up to you. But you may consider it helpful and useful to cross reference that with the text messages and work out what exactly is happening at different points in time.

"Pieces of evidence that do not lie. Silent witnesses. Build up a framework to work out what is actually happening. These are the bits of the case that cannot be contested. Work out the bits that really cannot be contested and see how everything else slots into that.

"I'm asking you to - you can't ignore the who of all of this. But I'm suggesting to you you need to primarily look at the how the why the when the what and ask yourself the questions how significant is the who of it.

"Did Mr McGregor assault Ms Hand. In reality this is about rape and rape is a form of assault. There's no doubt whatever way you find this case, if you find for Mr McGregor that would be devastating for Ms Hand, if you find for Ms Hand that be devastating for Mr McGregor."

Remy Farrell SC: "The case is not about some kind of hot take"

"What's the case about. Well the case it is about the evidence. The case is not about some kind of hot take, its not about your gut, its not about what colour writers in newspapers might say its about. This case is about the evidence and nothing but the evidence.

"It's not about vindication. Its about those questions on the issue paper. That and nothing else..

"It seems significant part plaintiff case is suggest to you this only form she can get vindication and implication there was something wrong with DPP decision not to prosecute. The judge will quite rightly tell you it doesn't matter what DPP thinks. All that matters is what you think. That's all that matters in this case. I'm inviting you to deal with this in a methodical and systematic way.

""You do not give a verdict in accordance with your gut reaction, with feelings, or that you might not like Mr McGregor. He is someone who elicits strong views. Some people love him, some people very much do not love him. It may well be the case you as a jury - may well have negative views. Some of you may even loathe him.

"So its important I address that and invite you to give some consideration to that. We're not immune to the fact and we do have ears so when Mr McGregor refers to two lovely ladies we do hear the intake of breathe coming from the jury box."

Closing speeches begin

Remy Farrell SC for Conor McGregor is first.

"What's important in this case is the evidence," he says. He says he is not going to treat jury to a "dramatic speech."

The jury are now in the room

Jury being given the issue paper which they will be required to fill out upon a verdict. They're also being provided with a list of exhibits.

Judge tells jury he is preparing in advance of charge to them a sheet with the core evidence and figures relating to the loss of earnings claim. He says it gives them something to work off.

Closing speeches expected today

Once again, a warning of content about alleged sexual assault.

For live updates direct to your phone join our WhatsApp service

Join the Irish Mirror’s breaking news service on WhatsApp. Click this link to receive breaking news and the latest headlines direct to your phone. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.

Hello and welcome to our live blog of the Conor McGregor civil case

Proceedings are due to resume at 10.30am this morning.