The lying ex-cop who perjured himself during the sexual assault proceedings of NRL star Jack de Belin argues he should be spared jail, his lawyer has told a court.

The man, who can only be known as Officer A due to a non-publication order, on Tuesday appeared before the Wollongong District Court as he prepares to learn his fate for lying under oath.

The ex-cop will later this year face sentencing 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.

FOX LEAGUE, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every game of every round in the 2025 NRL Telstra Premiership, LIVE with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your first month for just $1. Limited-time offer >

Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair arrived at court on Tuesday surrounded by a large throng of family and friends as Judge Christine Mendes heard submissions on Officer A’s sentence.

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”.

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.

The court was told that he later admitted to lying.

His barrister Peggy Dwyer SC told the court on Tuesday that at the time of his evidence, he was suffering from PTSD and depressive disorder having been “exposed to gruesome and disturbing incidents” during his long policing career.

Ms Dwyer told the court that his mental health “impaired his capacity in terms of the evidence that he gave” and that he was a “man of great character” and a well-respected officer.

The court was told that he was feeling pressure at the time, including from his supervisors.

And, Ms Dwyer said, had he been in a better state of mind, he would not have misled the court.

Ms Dwyer argued that Officer A’s actions did not dictate whether Mr de Belin and Mr Sinclair were charged and that the complainants’ allegation “had to be investigated”.

“It could not be suggested that this detective deliberately interfered with the ability of either of the accused to have a fair trial,” Ms Dwyer said.

Ms Dwyer argued that he should not be sent to jail and to do so would be “catastrophic” to his mental health.

Officer A was medically retired from the force in August 2023.

Judge Mendes will hand down her sentence on September 12.