Attempted rape trial collapses over concerns jurors discussed case outside court

The Supreme Court trial of a police officer accused of attempted rape collapsed on Tuesday after concerns some jurors had discussed the case with a member of the public outside the jury room.

The defendant, Police Sergeant Elliot Brooke, 33, faced three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted rape.

He strongly denied the charges throughout the trial.

Jurors were expected to return a verdict on Tuesday after more than two weeks of proceedings and hours of deliberations.

But, on Tuesday morning, Chief Justice Anthony Dudley was informed two jurors had been spotted in conversation on Main Street with a member of the public who had sat through much of the trial.

He explained that two jurors had a “brief discussion” with this person.

While the Chief Justice accepted that it may have been “unintentional”, he said he would not be able to take a verdict from the jury as there “will be questions over the fairness of the trial”.

“With huge regret, I am going to discharge you,” Mr Justice Dudley told the jury.

To ensure the fairness of a trial, jurors are told they must consider only the information put before them in court and must only discuss the case when they are all together.

Crucially, there must be “no engagement with anyone” outside those strictly defined parameters, the Chief Justice said.

Mr Justice Dudley had underlined the importance of this on Monday when he reminded jurors not to discuss the evidence overnight with anyone.

“I am sorry this trial has concluded in a way where it hasn’t come to a conclusion,” the Chief Justice told Mr Brooke, adding “it would not have been fair” to continue the proceedings.

The human impact of the development was evident in the courtroom in a tense exchange in the public gallery as the judge announced his decision to discharge the jury in the interests of fairness.

The member of the public who it was feared had discussed courtroom matters with the two jurors was sitting in the public gallery watching proceedings.

As she left the courtroom, a relative of the defendant told her she had “jeopardised” the trial, prompting a loud response from her that this was “a lie”.

A relative of the complainant cried in the back of the courtroom.

The decision to cut short the trial before a verdict was delivered will mean both the complainant and defendant will have to face going through the difficult court process again.

Mr Justice Dudley ordered a fresh trial, which will likely be heard in the spring of 2026.

He set the matter down for a pre-case management hearing on November 25. It is expected the trial could be set down for a date in March or April.

The collapse of the trial will also have “a real impact” on the court and its very busy diary, the Chief Justice said.

Mr Brooke was granted continuing bail.

Johann Fernandez and Cecile Gomez appeared for the Crown.

Shane Danino represented the defendant. Defence lawyer, Gudrun Young, KC, had represented Mr Brooke throughout the trial.