Revealed: The stunning court exchange that played a huge role in ending AFL star Tanner Bruhn's secret rape ordeal

Sexual assault charges brought against Tanner Bruhn and another man, Patrick Sinnott, have been dropped after a key witness to the case admitted to giving false evidence while being questioned in court.

Lawyers for the AFL player issued a statement outside Geelong Magistrates Court on Tuesday, saying that their client had been to ‘hell and back’ following the ‘false accusations’ made against him.

Mr Bruhn, 23, has been fighting the case for a year, with a suppression order having been established to prevent his identity from being revealed.

That order was lifted by the court on Tuesday, after the rape and intentional sexual touching charges against him were withdrawn by the Office of Public Prosecutions.

Prosecutors had alleged that Mr Bruhn and Mr Sinnott had raped a woman they met at the After Dark Gentleman's Club in Geelong during the early hours of February 5, 2023. The pair had been formally charged in February of this year.

During a committal hearing, the court was told that Mr Bruhn and Mr Sinnott had travelled with the woman to a bottle shop car park, where the complainant alleged the assaults had taken place.

Mr Bruhn and Mr Sinnott have vehemently denied the charges and were due to plead not guilty had the case proceeded to trial.

The case was dismissed on Tuesday after key witness Harrison Martin told the court during a committal hearing last month that he had given fals evidence in his police statement. 

Mr Martin had been at the club during the night in question.

During the first two days of that hearing, Mr Martin had testified about the night in question. He claimed that the two men were being ‘a bit combative to the bouncers’ at the strip club. He also alleged that he was assaulted by one of the two men.

Mr Martin was pressed on his statement by Mr Sinnott’s barrister, Moya O’Brien, who had noted that 'from the moment the men arrived to the moment they left' there was CCTV footage.

‘I am giving you an opportunity not to commit perjury,’ the barrister said, to which Mr Martin replied: ‘I am not lying.’

Mr Martin later asked to leave the court to get some fresh air. A police officer had followed him outside to check on his wellbeing. Mr Martin did not return and the court was told that he had ‘raised a matter that required independent legal advice’. The court was also told that Mr Martin suffered from Functional Neurological Disorder.

He returned the following morning and the court was told that Mr Martin had admitted to the police officer who had followed him outside that he had given false evidence in his police statement.

The officer’s notes from the conversation, which were read in court, said: ‘I am sorry. I lied in my police statement. Am I going to get in trouble?’

Mr Martin agreed in court that the comments were accurate.

Mr Bruhn’s barrister, Hayden Rattray, said to Mr Martin: ‘The second thing you say to the police officer yesterday is: “I lied in my statement to police about the statement”.’

Mr Martin replied: ‘Yes.’

Mr Rattray then continued to question Mr Martin.

‘When in the course of the discussion (with the complainant) does the complainant admit to you that she lied to the police?’ Mr Rattray said.

Mr Martin replied: ‘Yes,’ before adding that his conversation with the complainant took place before he made his statement to the police.

He later confirmed that he had ‘no memory of the two accused even being there in the first place, let alone the night.’

‘It would not surprise me if that was said to me (by the complainant),’ he told the court.

‘As in, whatever’s happened, you know, once they have gone off in the car, that has obviously upset her. And in a way, it’s her (the complainant’s) way of going, well, if you say this, it’s going to seem like, you know, they (co-accused) wanted something more.’

Mr Rattray asked: ‘That is the complainant suggesting that if you tell a particular version of events, it will render or make or likely her false rape allegation?’

Mr Martin replied: ‘That’s correct.’

Mr Bruhn’s barrister continued to press Mr Martin on his accusation that he had been assaulted by one of the co-accused: ‘Is it your best memory that the complainant told you she saw that?’

Mr Martin replied: ‘Yes’.

‘So the complainant actually told you that you had been the victim of an assault?’ Mr Rattray asked, to which Mr Martin replied: ‘That’s correct.’

‘Do you appreciate that that’s utterly false?’ the barrister asked again. Mr Martin replied: ‘Yes, I do understand that.’

Mr Rattray went on to reference another part of Mr Martin’s statement, in which he claims to have received a phone call from the complainant who told him: ‘Help, I’m in trouble.’

He was asked by Mr Rattray whether that was a lie, to which he replied: ‘Yes.’

‘The most likely explanation for that lie is that the complainant told you to tell it?’ Mr Rattray asked.

‘Yes,’ Mr Martin replied.

Mr Bruhn, who joined Geelong in 2023 following a two-year spell at GWS Giants, is now free to rejoin his team-mates for pre-season training.

The club issued a statement on Tuesday acknowledging the finalisation of the legal procedure.

‘While legal proceedings have been ongoing, the Club has provided professional welfare to Tanner during this time and will continue to do so,’ a club spokesperson said.

Following Tuesday’s hearing, Dermot Dann KC, a criminal barrister acting for Mr Bruhn, said: ‘His whole career has been put in jeopardy, and he’s basically been to hell and back.

‘It’s a case where he’s had to endure attacks on social media from people who seem to have absolutely no understanding or grip or grasp of the presumption of innocence.’

Mr Dann also explained that the case ‘represented a horrible stain on the criminal justice system.’

‘It was a case where the evidence in the early stages of the committal revealed that when it came to these allegations of rape and sexual assault, the complainant had admitted that she had lied,’ Mr Dann explained.

‘It was a case where another prosecution witness admitted in his evidence that he told lies to the police and told lies in the court.

‘It was a case where that same prosecution witness admitted in his evidence, it was the complainant who had told him to lie.’

While the proceedings were taking place, some took to social media to attack Mr Bruhn, despite the suppression order.

‘Those people who did attack him on social media, we say, should step away from their keyboards and hang their heads in shame,’ Mr Dann said.

‘Anyone who wants to comment on this case should do so on the understanding that not only was Mr Bruhn presumed to be innocent in respect of these charges... that he should be regarded, now and forever, as someone who was 100 per cent innocent,’ he said.

Mr Bruhn’s lawyer, Anna Balmer, added in a statement: ‘Tanner is innocent. He was falsely accused of these crimes.

‘Whilst he is thankful that the court process has vindicated him, he is understandably upset that he had to go through a court process at all, and that it took a year to get here.

‘Tanner wants to see those responsible for making these false allegations held to account. We should all hope that Victoria Police properly investigate what appears to be an attempt to pervert the course of justice by at least one, if not two, prosecution witnesses.

‘The last year of Tanner’s life has been horrible. Tanner is grateful for the support he has received from his family and friends, his football club, AFL Players Association and his manager, Paul Connors.

‘Tanner wants to put this nightmare behind him and get on with playing football. He is hopeful for the future and looking forward to getting back to doing what he loves.’

Mr Bruhn thanked his family, friends and others who have supported him during the legal proceedings, before adding he was looking forward to getting back to playing football.

'The last year of my life has been horrible,' he said.

'I'm grateful for those who stood by me.'