Dragons star Jack de Belin appears in court to confront lying cop

News.com.au

3 days ago

NRL star Jack de Belin has appeared in a Wollongong court to confront the ex-cop who lied during his sexual assault proceedings.
The man, who can only be known as Officer A due to a non-publication order made by the court, on Tuesday appeared before the Wollongong District Court as he prepares to learn his fate for lying to the court under oath.
The ex-cop is facing sentencing proceedings having pleaded guilty to one count of giving false evidence under oath amounting to perjury relating to his cross-examination during a pre-trial hearing in the matter of the St George Illawarra forward and his friend Callan Sinclair.
Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair arrived at court on Tuesday surrounded by a large throng of family and friends as the court heard submissions on Officer A's sentence, which will be handed down at a later date
Officer A was charged following a police internal investigation after he was found to have lied during a pre-trial hearing in February 2020 while answering questions about material that he had viewed on Mr de Belin's phone that was covered by legal professional privilege.
Crown prosecutor Ciro Triscari told the court on Tuesday that Officer A's offending was a 'serious example of perjury' that was made during 'obviously serious criminal proceedings where the liberty of individuals was at stake'.
Officer A viewed texts between Mr de Belin and his solicitor but later lied under oath when he told a judge he believed they related to 'Dragons business'.
Mr De Belin and Mr Sinclair faced two trials in the NSW District Court after pleading not guilty to sexually assaulting a woman inside a North Wollongong unit in December 2018.
After a second trial, they were both found not guilty of one count of sexual assault.
The Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently dropped the remaining charges after two trials ended in hung juries.
The pair have persistently proclaimed their innocence and maintained that any sexual contact was consensual.
Officer A sat in the front row of the public gallery of Wollongong District Court on Tuesday while Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair sat on the other side of the room surrounded by a large group of supporters.
Officer A was charged after a three-year investigation by the NSW Police Professional Standards Command.
He was charged relating to his evidence in the District Court during a pre-trial hearing when Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair's lawyers were applying for a stay of proceedings, which would have resulted in them never facing trial.
That application was ultimately dismissed by Judge Andrew Haesler.
During the hearing, Officer A was questioned about material he had viewed on Mr de Belin's yellow Nokia phone that was seized by police in December 2019 when they raided the NRL star's home.
According to a statement of agreed facts, Officer A viewed SMS messages between Mr de Belin and a contact listed as 'Craig Lawyer'.
'Craig Lawyer' was Craig Osborne, a Dragons director who was also Mr de Belin's lawyer, and the messages were protected by legal professional privilege.
In the messages, Mr Osborne gave Mr de Belin an update on his legal team's preparations for the then upcoming trial, including the issuing of subpoenas, the taking of witness statements and experts who might be called to give evidence.
The court was told that 190 of the 203 messages between Mr de Belin and Mr Osborne viewed by Officer A were covered by legal professional privilege.
After discovering that police had accessed the material, lawyers for Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair applied for a permanent stay of proceedings, arguing it robbed them of their right to a fair trial.
Officer A told the court under oath that he believed Mr de Belin's communications with 'Craig Lawyer' only related to 'Dragons business'.
This is despite admitting knowing that Mr Osborne was employed by RMB Lawyers, who were representing Mr de Belin during his criminal proceedings.
During the pre-trial hearing, he was asked: 'So what you're telling us, if I understand your evidence, is notwithstanding that you knew that Craig Osborne was Mr Jack de Belin's solicitor in this matter … and notwithstanding that you knew that 'Craig Lawyer' was in fact Craig Osborne … and that these communications between Mr De Belin and 'Craig Lawyer' were only communications that, to use your words, appeared to be detailing 'Dragons business'?
Officer A replied at the time: 'Yes.'
The court was told that he later admitted to lying.
Officer A was medically retired from the force in August 2023.
He will be sentenced later this year.