Due to an order by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), no further proceedings will be taken against Benjamine William Shields, 43, in relation to the charge.

Mr Shields breathed a sigh of relief as he moved out from the dock and onto the floor after judge Huw Baker read his decision to cease the trial and dismiss the jury on Thursday, April 18.

He stood trial accused of sexually assaulting an 18-year-old man in the early hours of New Year's Day 2003 when he was 21 and serving on the Dubbo City Council.

The complainant - who cannot be named for legal reasons - told the court the sexual activity began consensually but alleged it began to hurt and Mr Shields did not stop when asked.

Mr Shields maintained everything that happened between he and the complainant was consensual.

The trial got off to a rocky start on Monday, April 8, when crown prosecutor Andrew Isaacs applied for the case to be vacated due to comments made to the media by Mr Shields' high-profile defence counsel Margaret Cunneen.

He said comments made by Ms Cunneen to The Saturday Telegraph implied that sexual assault cases were being brought gratuitously before the court in the aftermath of #MeToo.

She said the DPP were routinely charging men with sex offences on evidence "so weak" there was "no chance of conviction" and these cases were "likely to disappoint a complainant, disrupt the life of a man who will be found not guilty and risk a bill to the taxpayer for lawyers' costs".

"In the past, the majority of cases involved strangers, physical violence or both," she was reported as saying.

"Now, the majority of cases involve situations between people who are not strangers and where the complainant and the accused are in a private situation by mutual agreement."

Although her comments were not made about Mr Shields' case, Mr Isaacs was concerned they would impact the jury's ability to make a judgement.

Judge Baker agreed the comments could have the potential to prejudice the Crown's case but rejected the application to vacate the trial.

He said the risk could be remedied by specific instruction to the jury.

But that wouldn't be the only road bump. Just days into the trial, on Thursday, April 11, the jury was dismissed.

The decision came after Judge Baker expressed concerns that comments made by the complainant during cross-examination could prejudice the jury.

Initially, both parties agreed to press on with the trial, but the defence changed their position.

"I have thought very carefully about the circumstances," Judge Baker said.

"In light of all of the circumstances ... I find that it would have been vividly etched on the minds of the jury.

"The only alternative here is to discharge the jury and I make that order."

The second trial began on Monday, April 15, in front of a new jury. But it didn't get much further than the first attempt.

After the complainant's evidence was played for the new jury, the cross-examination resumed on Tuesday, April 16.

The next day the jury would not sit while parties discussed how the trial would move forward in light of a new statement made by the complainant to police on Tuesday, April 16.

The complainant told police he had received a phone call from his cousin overnight. On the call, she said she remembered him telling her about the incident in 2013.

However, as the complainant's evidence was incomplete, he was not meant to discuss the case with anyone outside the courtroom.

Judge Baker handed down his decision to dismiss the jury in light of the direction from the DPP on Thursday, April 18. An official reason for the directive has not been given.

"It has been directed that no further proceedings be taken against Mr Shields in relation to this trial," he said.

"Proceedings against him on this charge are finished and will not go any further."

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been contacted for comment regarding the reason for the decision to withdraw the proceedings.

Mr Shields will apply for costs and a hearing date has been set for July 19, 2024.