Due to an order by the Department of Public Prosecution (DPP), no further proceedings will be taken against former Dubbo mayor Ben Shields 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 he asked him to.

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 Sheild's 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.

On Wednesday, April 10, Ms Cunneen was pressing the complainant about his motivation for coming forward about the alleged asexual assault.

The complainant filed a police report about the incident in November 2021 after his aunt passed on a Facebook Live video made by Mr Shields' political rival Stephen Lawrence, then mayor of Dubbo.

In the video, Mr Lawrence, a Labor party member, detailed a number of claims made about Shields, a Liberal party member, and called on anyone who may have information to come forward.

Ms Cunneen put to the complainant that his accusation was "untrue" and an attempt to "blacken Mr Shields good name" for political reasons.

"You have made an untruthful allegation against Mr Shields, haven't you," she said.

The complainant denied this.

Ms Cunneen asked him why, if not political reasons, he had decided to come forward about the assault after watching the video.

He said the reason was not political at all but related to other parts of the video which the Crown told him he, "could not talk about or it might be prejudice".

After the comment Mr Isaacs quickly rose, requesting the jury be sent out of the room.

The judge agreed. He said other allegations against Mr Shields were not to be brought up during the trial and the complainant's comments that there was something he was told not to talk about would 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, said she remembered him telling her about the incident in 2013.

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 Department of Prosecution declined to comment on the reason for their decision to withdraw the proceedings.

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