NSW Supreme Court jurors returned not guilty verdicts on eight of ten charges against former state Liberal MP Rory Amon, leaving two counts unresolved and the case open to further prosecutorial action. The trial took place in Sydney and focused on encounters in 2017 that prosecutors said involved a 13-year-old boy. The 36-year-old defendant denied all allegations throughout the proceedings.
From the outset, the issues before the court were narrow and factual. Prosecutors alleged sexual offences arising from meetings in 2017. Amon maintained he believed the person he met online was over the age of consent and disputed that a second meeting occurred.
What the jury decided
The jury acquitted Amon on a broad range of charges. Those included four counts alleging sexual intercourse with a person aged 10 to 14 and two counts of attempted sexual intercourse with a child. The acquittals cover the majority of the indictment.
The panel could not reach verdicts on two remaining counts, producing a partial hung jury. The unresolved counts mean prosecutors may consider further steps, including seeking a retrial on those specific charges.
Legal observers note that an acquittal on multiple counts reduces the immediate criminal exposure for Amon, while the unresolved counts leave legal uncertainty. From a procedural standpoint, the prosecution must decide whether to pursue the outstanding counts or discontinue them.
From a procedural standpoint, the prosecution must decide whether to pursue the outstanding counts or discontinue them. Jurors failed to reach verdicts on two charges after three days of deliberation. They were discharged on those counts. The situation leaves prosecutors able to seek a retrial on the unresolved matters, a legally significant option that preserves further action.
How the alleged incidents were described
Prosecutors said the allegations relate to encounters in June and July 2017 involving a teenager who was 13 at the time. The Crown alleged one meeting occurred at Amon’s apartment complex on Sydney’s Northern Beaches. That alleged assault was said to have taken place in a communal bathroom connected to the building’s car park. Prosecutors described the encounters as separate events within the same period.
Defence case and disputed points
Prosecutors described the encounters as separate events within the same period. The complainant told the court he created a profile on an adult dating platform while still a teenager because he felt isolated and wanted connection. He gave evidence that he told friends, his mother, a school counsellor and a psychologist about the alleged events before later making a formal police complaint.
The defence maintained that Amon believed the person he met online was at least 16 years old. He rejected suggestions that a second in-person meeting took place. Amon acknowledged meeting the complainant once in 2017 after making contact on an app intended for adults. He told the court he had an honest and reasonable belief about the complainant’s age.
The competing accounts of prior disclosure and the question of a second meeting remain central to the disputed facts before the jury.
The competing accounts of prior disclosure and the question of a second meeting remain central to the disputed facts before the jury. The trial also examined how the complainant presented his age on the dating platform and in later messages that moved to other social apps. Those communications were pivotal to determining what Amon knew or reasonably believed about the other person’s age.
Legal and political fallout
Following the charges, Amon resigned from the NSW Parliament in 2026 and was expelled from the Liberal Party. Before his election to state parliament, he served on Northern Beaches Council and worked for federal MP Jason Falinski. He was elected as the Liberal member for Pittwater in 2026.
The jury’s split verdict does not end the legal process. The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions will decide whether to pursue a retrial on the two counts where jurors were deadlocked. That decision will depend on whether the DPP assesses a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether a retrial would be in the public interest.
What comes next
If the DPP seeks a retrial, proceedings would return to court limited to the unresolved counts. If the DPP declines, those counts would be discontinued and Amon would remain without conviction on all ten charges. Prosecutorial standards and discretion will guide the DPP’s assessment at this stage.
Broader context and community response
The outcome is likely to reverberate beyond the courtroom. Local residents and community groups have followed the trial closely and expressed mixed reactions to the jury’s inability to reach verdicts on two counts. Political colleagues have also monitored the case because of Amon’s public role.
Legal commentators note the practical hurdles for retrial decisions. They point to evidentiary strengths and weaknesses highlighted during the trial and to the resource and fairness considerations that factor into public-interest judgments.
From a constituent perspective, uncertainty over the outstanding counts may influence perceptions of accountability and representation in the electorate. Electoral and party officials will watch how the DPP’s decision affects public confidence and political dynamics.
The next formal step rests with the DPP’s prosecution review. That review will determine whether the matter resumes for trial or whether the remaining charges are discontinued.
The jury’s split verdict and a partial acquittal have left two counts unresolved while eight charges were dismissed. The Director of Public Prosecutions is conducting a review to decide whether to retry the remaining allegations.
The case drew attention because it concerns a former elected official and raises complex issues about online interactions, age misrepresentation and consent. Community groups and media that cover LGBTIQA+ matters followed the proceedings closely.
From the perspective of the courtroom, the trial highlighted the evidentiary challenges of cases built on years-old digital communications and witness recollection. The complainant’s earlier accounts to family members and professionals featured prominently in the Crown’s narrative. The DPP’s forthcoming determination will govern whether the matter returns to court.