Mr Farrell speaks of "delayed shock"

"This idea of delayed shock is put before you to suggest someone carrying on normally, appears to be happy is actually in shock. Way you explain it goes on for hrs is to say its delayed shock. Now is that actually a real explanation?

"She remembers being raped but then she briefly unrememembers the rape when she woke up some time later. She thought she was going to die, said she was choked 3 times. Then all her faculties go out window temporarily. She wakes up - remembers going into Danielle.

"She remembers sending the text to Ste. But she doesn't remember she was actually in the basement.

"She remembers going down to say bye to Mr McGregor. She doesn't remember asking him to stay. Remembers nothing of significant periods of time after. She remembers being back up in the room and all of a sudden recalling the rape.

"But doesn't recall what happened after. She remembers waking up in the taxi but not having got the taxi with Mr Lawrence. She remembers goingto Emer Brennan but doesnt seem to recall what she actually told her.

""Is it probably true she doesnt remember all this stuff or is it avoiding it - anything problematic - can't remember any of that sorry.

"Suggest to you carefully curated account. She knew it became necessary to pretend couldn't remember fact of the rape when she woke up.

"She knew full well fact she had sex with James Lawrence after was fatal to account she had given. She knew she had to account for some of her texts. She must have been accutely aware of how text she sent at 18.28 looked. This a very carefully put together account."

Mr Farrell: "You heard evidence from a valuation expert. You may wonder how that comes into the case."

"It's an extraordinary feature.

"On the second day of this case (Ms Hand) said something striking - certain things I remember, certain things gone. "That's something of an understatement," Farrell says. Do you believe Ms Hand when she says she has no memory.

"You might well have moment excitement when may thought psychiatrist was going to deal with this. Might have thought there was going to be an explanation or mechanism for memory loss. But we didn't.

"We know Ms Hand did go out from time to time. Not first time she went out for a heavy night. No history of blackouts, memory loss."

Mr Farrell speaks of the photos of bruises

On first photos taken of the bruises - "why were they deleted?" It appears on Ms Hand account she became concerned about bruises when she had to come home and face the music. How would she explain them to Ste?

"You may recall in cross examination when she made statement to gardai she couldn't remember wearing watch or not. Never part of account she gave to gardai. Simply a detail latched on.

"On deleted texts - "The explanation she given to you is she didnt want to press charges. Is that an excuse that stands up to any degree of scrutiny? Why the need to go around deleting text messages? What do you think about that?

""Is it just a coincidence these txt messages do not remain available? It's curious those ones were not deleted (texts to Ste). Look at the time it has taken Ms Hand on phone. Only two texts survive."

He asks why then we only have the two texts and one call. "Very curious," Mr Farrell says, asking what happened to the rest.

Mr Farrell: "How can that conceivably be reconciled with Ms Hand's account?"

"Ms Kealy told you Ms Hand clearly wanted to stay in the Beacon Hotel. Ask yourself is all that just noise."

Mr Farrell asks jury if they might wonder why Danielle Kealy wasn't called as a witness by the plaintiff.

She was in the penthouse.

Ms Kealy agreed in 2019 the doors were not fully shut, Mr Farrell says. "That's an important data point for you in this case."

"In this case Ms Hand has accepted in cross examination that she did not know if the door was closed." He asks why then she told friend Jen the door was locked. "It's an important piece of evidence," he says.

"She attempts to write out Danielle Kealy in her account she gave to Ms Brennan. Why does Ms Hand decline to name Ms Kealy to gardai the next day. If her version events correct, last she saw of her was getting into a car with a violent rapist

"You may consider it curious Ms Kealy put under summons in this case. It's notable when Mr Gordon cross examined Ms Kealy - gentle attempt to suggest she has been nobbled. Purpose was to suggest Ms Kealy part of some conspiracy, scared off.

"The evidence you have from Ms Kealy arose from circumstances it's fair to say she was not hugely enthused to be here. But what did she say. She confirmed Ms Hand was in and out of the bedroom - with no signs of distress."

Mr Farrell: "Look at the footage"

"You can actually see where she is. The question is did she lie about it. Did she lie about where she was, what she was doing, why she sent the text?

"Look at the footage, see can you sense any sense of concern on Ms Hand. See if you can figure out why it is she calling Mr McGregor before texting Ste, why texting Jen before texting Ste. Did she lie to you? Probably? Probably not?

Mr Farrell: "Ms Hand had said she was panicked, worried about her partner, remembered going to her bag and told him she was alright having a good time."

"Bear that in mind when you look at the footage. Is any of this true, what she is saying. We know its not true because we can see where she is. All that texture and detail of waking up, panicking and worrying about Ste. That just didn't happen."

Mr Farrell: "Perhaps the single most important lie in this entire case is text she sends at 18:28 down in the basement."

She gave you a very vivid account - says she woke up in panic, worried about time it was. Remembers getting phone out of her bag. She wanted to reassure Ste.

"She remembers in evidence this (text she sent) was a lie and why she told lie. She was even able to tell gardai about this. Yet everything she said is flatly and entirely contradicted by the CCTV.

"You may well come to view she spends awful lot time on phone than can be accounted for. What else is Ms Hand doing during this period? Its a notable feature of that sequence of events that last thing she does is send a txt to Ste.

"Striking she seems to think it important to call MrMcGregor before she gets back to Ste. Look at that on the CCTV. She finishes up business on phone, does a little victory dance and goes back to engaging with Mr Lawrence."

Mr Farrell: "Start with the text messages."

Refers to text to Ste about staying out. "At that stage we know they all had gone home. They weren't going out. So why is the lie being told.

"Ste texts back again where are you going. The lie is told we're going to the Goat. Why is she telling that lie. Why is she telling lies before she's even met Mr McGregor."

Mr Farrell: "Look at the CCTV"

"Look at that CCTV and ask that question. What does Ms Hand say. She says that is something she wouldn't do, didn't find James attractive and was on period.

"What does the CCTV say about all 3 those propositions? She clearly found Mr Lawrence irresistible.

"She self evidently found Mr Lawrence very attractive and you can see that on the CCTV. Try and figure out which one is more eager. Who's chasing who. Then the tampon. One thing clear from all CCTV - no discomfort of any sort. Contrast with footage from ambulance.

"Consider all of that when look at this question. Also ask you to give consideration what plaintiff said about Mr Lawrence, suggestion that he's a patsy.

"On contrary you will find what Ms Hand saying in her case is she was raped by Mr Lawrence. Now you may well be scratching your heads. When it comes to court case she says I don't believe I ever had sex with him. It's an extraordinary situation.

"Ms Hand apparently is prepared to sue someone for rape in circumstances where she doesn't think she had sex with him and she never thought she had sex with him.

"On multiple occasions she said I just seen a drunken vulnerable woman on the CCTV. When you look at the CCTV what do you see? Do you see someone who knows what she wants. Do you see someone when you look at the evidence who's well able to lie?"

Mr Farrell: "Was it because she was concerned the CCTV from the Beacon might not back her up, a little bit like Danielle Kealy?"

"Again I suggest to you this question not a difficult one. I suggest to you can't take other view other than Ms Hand knew exactly where she was.

"Did she have sex with James Lawrence? She is alone for several hrs with Mr Lawrence. Leaves hotel with him. Mr Lawrence says they had sex. CCTV shows much affection. Imagine if you're one of the people who got into the lift. Would you have said to yourselves, get a room?"

Mr Farrell: "When they get to penthouse - fine view of Dublin mountains. Not Temple Bar."

"Very much not Temple Bar. If she was curious where she ended up, remarkable she never looked out the window at any stage. A visit to reception but well she deals with that by saying couldn't remember.

"What does Ms Hand point to? The bath. Literally the sole thing. So when you come to consider this. Is it probable she knew she was in the Beacon. Did she lie to Ste about that. But perhaps most importantly - did she lie to you about that. Probably or probably not?"

Mr Farrell speaks about the octagon quote...

"You might take view is plaintiff either picking out single detail for purpose of suggesting to you that is something that couldn't be made up.

"Insofar as this suggestion this not a detail Ms Hand could come up with herself, in passing she never mentions the trip to Las Vegas. So this suggestion she knew nothing about MMA, just think...

""The next info point we have is a text to Jen at 23:09. So just like that something has happened - gone from happy,having fun, to apparently being distressed. How does that figure with consistency.

"Happy happy happy all the way through and then bang as soon as she knows she has to go home and face the music. You cannot ignore that time.

"Did she know she was in the Morgan. You might want to work out a pros and cons list. On pro side she did know it was the Beacon. You heard she was curious to know where she was going. You heard it was broad daylight as they were driving around.

"This was not someone being driven around in the back of a van. As ordinary people with common sense you can safely assume know difference between Sandyford and Temple Bar. It's a fairly stark difference.

"Think about the lie she told Ste there., How could anyone conceivably mix up (going to Sandyford over Temple Bar)."

Mr Farrell: "You ask the question why is the person telling that particular lie."

"She said it's not a crime to lie to your boyfriend. We all lie from time to time. But what I suggest to you is much more interesting, is why someone tells a lie. You ask the question why is the person telling that particular lie.

"Why did she lie to Ste? Is it perhaps because going to town is one thing but hotel in Sandyford with two men is quite another thing. The next lie she tells, she says Danielle Jade, everyone from work are there in the penthouse.

"Why does she say they were in the Morgan bar. Why is she putting all those people with her in a bar. She then goes on multiple occasions to say to Ste he told me he would kill me. That's an allegation we don't see popping up ever, ever again.

"Interestingly she tells Ste she ran out of the place. An echo of the untruth she told Emer Brennan. Something we know to be completely untrue.

"Throughout that recording Ms Hand is aware she is telling lies. She cries, insists she is not. She is even able to recall some texts she had sent earlier that stage asking if she could go out with the girls. So she's referencing only truthful text for purpose convince him she isn't lying. Again no suggestion of memory loss. So when considering question consistency you might want to pay some attention that first two people Ms Hand reports allegation to is they both kept records."

Mr Farrell: "What she told Emer Brennan were not things coming back to her."

"She told her series of things that never actually happened. When challenged she says main details were there. If you want to cross examine me or about other detail it's 'I can't remember, I was confused.

""So going back to probably, probably not. Ask yourself is that confusion or is it pure fantasy. The CCTV montage at 41:53 you see even the security guard has gone home. So how does that fit in with what she said.

"When she gives her account to Ste, her partner, again there's no suggestion of memory loss either. Ste was not called, nor was the recording played as part of the plaintiff's case. You may want to put that on scales when considering consistency of her account.

"These were the first people she made reports to. You might want to consider the sheer number of lies. You might want to count them and note how persistent those lies were. The first lie was she said we went into town. We know that's not true."

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.