A woman who alleges the Irish mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor brutally raped her after a Christmas party six years ago in Dublin will “always be a marked woman” simply because she had the courage to stand up to the fighter, a jury has been told.

John Gordon, senior counsel for Nikita Hand, also known as Nikita Ní Laimhín, told the eight women and four men in Dublin’s high court they had been “subjected to arrogant, distasteful, dishonest testimony” by the fighter.

In his closing speech to a packed high court in Dublin, with McGregor and the plaintiff sitting just feet away from each other, he described McGregor’s alleged behaviour as savage, cowardly and devious.

He went on to claim that McGregor, who denies the rape, had colluded with a friend to concoct a story that he and a friend, a co-defendant in the trial, both had consensual sex with the hairdresser at the post-party party on 18 December 2018.

Summing up his argument, he told the jury McGregor provided “no answer to his appalling behaviour” and showed his true temperament when he launched a “stream of invective” at his client during cross examination, Gordon said.

Gordon told the jury that his client lived in fear, and had had to move away from the area where she lived but that she wanted “vindication” after the director of public prosecutions decided not to press criminal charges.

Whatever the outcome, “she will always be a marked woman” because she stood up to McGregor, who is one of Ireland’s most successful fighters, estimated to be worth $200m, and a well-known figure in Dublin, Gordon said.

Earlier McGregor’s barrister told the jury that Hand had come up with an elaborate web of “false memories” of a big night out in order to cover up cheating on her then-partner.

Mr Justice Alexander Owens said the jury needed to concentrate on the evidence “from within the material they have” despite the “two sharply divergent accounts” of the night at the centre of the trial.

“One side or another is telling lies,” he told them.

The case centres on the events of 9 and 10 December in 2018 when Hand admits she and a work colleague enjoyed a 24-hour drinking spree involving an extended Christmas party that culminated in meeting up with McGregor and a friend who had been out clubbing in central Dublin on the same night.

She claims she was subjected to a brutal assault that left her severely bruised and suffering PTSD.

McGregor denies rape and says that he and Hand had consensual “athletic” sex on the night.

Remy Farrell, senior counsel for McGregor, opened his closing speech by admitting the jury might “loathe” the fighter.

“It may be the case some, a lot, most of you, have negative views about Mr McGregor, some of you may even loathe him, there’s no point pretending it may be otherwise. It’s important I address that,” Farrell said.

“You may also be unimpressed with a man who leaves family home on Saturday, goes drinking with women in hotel penthouses … they’re all unlikely to endear him to you,” he added.

“I’m not asking you to like him; I’m asking you to look at the evidence. I’m not asking you to invite him to Sunday lunch, but to interrogate your own views.

“This case is not about some kind of ‘hot take’ or not about your gut or what some colour writer in a newspaper says it’s about,” he told them. Nor was it about asking why the director of prosecutions did not bring a criminal case or about the disappointment felt by Hand.

Farrell told them that the case was not, as Hand’s lawyer had said, “about vindication” or “convicting someone” because you disapprove of their behaviour but about distinguishing facts from “curated” memories.

He said whether they found in favour of Hand or McGregor, their verdict would be devastating for both parties but they needed to concentrate on “islands of facts”, which included texts from Hand to her boyfriend stating she was in town rather than the penthouse.

He questioned her partial memory and asked whether the case would have been brought at all were it not for McGregor’s fame.