A jury has cleared former NSW Liberal MP Rory Amon of the majority of charges he faced over the alleged sexual assault of a 13-year-old boy he met through a hook-up app in 2017.
Mr Amon pleaded not guilty to 10 charges and did not deny there was some sexual activity, but gave evidence in a Sydney court that the teenager told him he was 17.
The complainant testified that he believed he had given his age as 15, which placed their accounts on either side of the age of consent.
Sexual assault support services:NSW Health Sexual Assault Services  NSW Sexual Violence Helpline on 1800 424 017NSW Victims Services on 1800 633 0631800RESPECT national helpline on 1800 737 732Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service on 1800 211 028Bravehearts (support for child sexual abuse survivors) on 1800 272 831Child Protection Helpline on 132 111MARS Australia (for men affected by rape and sexual abuse) on (07) 3857 1222National Survivors Foundation on 1300 124 433
The jury was hung on two charges — indecent assault of a person under 16 and having sexual intercourse with a person aged 10 to 14 — which related to their first meeting.
Jurors returned unanimous verdicts of not guilty on eight charges stemming from an alleged second meeting, after Mr Amon denied it occurred altogether.
The charges he has now been cleared of include four counts of having sexual intercourse with a person aged 10 to 14, and two of attempted sexual intercourse.
It will now be up to the New South Wales Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide if there will be a retrial on the undecided charges.
The Crown argued the former politician, who was 27 and an aspiring local councillor at the time, could not have honestly and reasonably believed the boy was older.
The NSW Supreme Court heard the pair chatted on either Squirt.org or Grindr before the online conversation moved to Snapchat, where Mr Amon used a false name and naked images were exchanged.
Jurors returned unanimous verdicts of not guilty on eight charges. (ABC News: Jamie McKinnell)
Mr Amon’s belief about the teen’s age was a critical issue in the trial, along with whether there were one or two meet-ups.
The Crown alleged the offences took place over two meetings in an underground car park toilet in July 2017.
Mr Amon flatly denied second meeting with complainant
In the witness box, the complainant said he created a profile on a hook-up app because he “really wanted connection” and “attention”, and was “obviously very insecure about myself”.
The now-22-year-old, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, recalled feeling “a bit nervous” and “a bit scared” when they first met and said Mr Amon asked him whether he had ever “done anything like this before”.
He said he was unsure whether that referred to having a relationship or sex, but “said no because it answered both questions”.
Mr Amon, now 36, did not dispute that sexual activity, including oral sex, occurred during that meeting, but maintained he believed the teen was older.
“Nothing that I saw changed my belief that he was 17,” he said.
Mr Amon insisted that if someone on an app had told him he was 15, he would have “ceased communication”.
The complainant, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was aged 13 at the time and Rory Amon was 27. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts)
The complainant recalled a second meeting similar to the first, but said Mr Amon brought a towel.
He testified about feeling “grossed out” and “repulsed” during sexual acts on the second occasion, including attempted intercourse.
But Mr Amon flatly denied there was a second meeting and said the teen’s profile disappeared off Snapchat, leading him to assume he had been removed as a friend.
The former politician’s lawyers highlighted that in 2017, he was not “out to the world” and said there was an “important distinction” between having a private sexual life and engaging in criminal conduct.
Defence case argued complainant’s accuracy
Defence counsel Matthew Johnston SC urged jurors to consider whether the complainant said he was 17 because he knew if he was too young, communication would be cut.
He said it can be difficult to determine a person’s age.
“When you are told someone’s age, you might well think it’s reasonable to accept … unless there’s some reason to challenge it.”
It was accepted that the complainant was “not emotionally ready” for the adult conduct he had engaged in, Mr Johnston said, but that was not Mr Amon’s fault.
The defence case also highlighted what were said to be issues concerning the accuracy and reliability of the complainant as a witness, including around the timeline of the two meetings.
He initially said there was one week between the two incidents, but his evidence changed to suggest they may have been on consecutive days.
The complainant told jurors Mr Amon continued to contact him and became “very insistent” on meeting again after the second incident before he blocked him.
For over a week the case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for more than week. (ABC News: Jamie McKinnell)
He spoke to friends, a teacher, a psychologist, and at one point, police about an incident occurring, but provided mostly vague details and recalled feeling ashamed and embarrassed.
“I thought it was my fault … even if there were moments where I wanted to verbalise what happened, the words didn’t come to me,” he said.
The trial heard there was more online contact between the pair in 2019 and in 2020, the complainant learned Mr Amon’s identity after a friend showed him a COVID-related email with a photo of the then-northern beaches councillor.
He made a complaint to police in 2022.
The jury retired about midday on Wednesday.
By Thursday afternoon, jurors had indicated there was an impasse but were asked to persevere.
They remained in the same position until Friday afternoon, but then signalled verdicts had been reached on the eight charges related to the alleged second meeting.
However, those verdicts were not revealed on Friday and Acting Justice Robert Hulme invited the panel to continue deliberating on the two charges related to the first meeting.
On Monday afternoon, the jurors again signalled they were no closer to achieving a verdict, including a majority verdict.