Former rugby league star Jarryd Hayne has walked out of prison after his sexual assault convictions were quashed on appeal.

Mr Hayne left a correctional facility in Sydney's west just before 5pm on Wednesday after being granted his release on bail.

The 36-year-old was found guilty in May last year of sexually assaulting a woman at her Newcastle home on the night of the 2018 NRL grand final.

It was the third time he had been tried over the incident and the second time he was found guilty.

His first trial ended in a hung jury, he was convicted after the second but then won an appeal, and the third trial resulted in this now-quashed conviction.

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal was split 2-1 over the decision.

Justice Stephen Rothman said the appeal succeeded on two grounds: one concerning the trial judge's decision not allow further cross-examination of the complainant and another concerning a direction to the jury about how to treat allegations the woman had lied.

"The outcome is that the appeal from each conviction is allowed … and the court will quash the two convictions in order that there be a new trial," he said.

"Whether there in fact is a new trial is a matter for the Director of the Public Prosecutions."

Mr Hayne, who has been in prison at a minimum-security jail at Lidcombe in Sydney's west since last year, has been granted bail, which was not opposed by the prosecution.

It was granted on a number of conditions, including that Mr Hayne pay a $20,000 surety and not attempt to contact the complainant or enter the Newcastle local government area.

The Director of Public Prosecutions said it would consider the Court of Criminal Appeal's ruling before deciding whether Mr Hayne should face a fourth trial.

In his written judgment, Justice Rothman noted: "In the current circumstances, it is unlikely that a new trial will occur before the expiry of the non-parole period and most of that period has already been served" and suggested there is "good reason for there not to be a fourth trial."

Mr Hayne, who appeared via videolink from prison, gave little reaction upon hearing the news his convictions would be quashed.

His lawyer Lauren MacDougall said Mr Hayne was "really, really looking forward to getting home to his family".

Hayne's lawyer argued the interaction was 'entirely consensual'

During the trial the jury heard the woman had contacted Mr Hayne via Instagram a little less than two weeks before their first in-person meeting and the messages progressed to a "sexualised" nature.

It heard he arrived at the woman's home, having negotiated a $550 taxi fare back to Sydney, and told the driver to wait outside.

The court heard Mr Hayne tried to kiss the woman, at one point grabbing her by the face, with "forceful" actions despite her telling him to stop.

The jurors were told Mr Hayne's charges were in relation to two forms of sexual activity — oral and digital penetration — and the complainant had said "no" and "stop".

It allegedly lasted for about 30 seconds, and stopped when the complainant's genitals started to bleed.

During the trial Mr Hayne's barrister, Margaret Cunneen SC, said the activity was "entirely consensual" and he "didn't mean to cause her any harm at all".

Mr Hayne's lawyers argued in the appeal that messages deleted from the woman's phone showed that she was consenting and should lead to his acquittal.

The complainant was said to have told the friend Mr Hayne "went down on her", but made no reference to her injury and blood, or to the sexual activity having been forced.

Mr Hayne's lawyers argued that the judge should have allowed them to further cross-examine the woman about why she had failed to disclose the messages to police around the time of the sexual assault.

They argued the issue was central to assessing the witness's credibility.

'The jury were deprived of evidence'

In the judgment Justice Rothman wrote that the cross examination should have been allowed as "it was for the jury to determine whether to believe the complainant" and that "demeanour would have played a significant role".

Justice Deborah Sweeney concurred writing: "The jury were deprived of evidence which had significance for their assessment of the honesty of the complainant."

"By not permitting counsel to cross-examine the complainant on those topics and then telling the jury that in considering the submission that the complainant had lied about matters including deletions from her phone, they should consider whether that was "fairly put", this created an unfairness in the accused's trial".

"The combined effect of those circumstances was to cause a miscarriage of justice in the trial."

Mr Hayne was sentenced in May 2023 to four years and nine months in prison, with a non-parole period of three years.

With time already served, he was eligible for parole from May next year.

Mr Hayne's first trial ended in a hung jury.

He was convicted after the second, but then won an appeal before being tried for a third time.