Charged with coercive control in NSW.

The legislative source.

The offence is built on four elements, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the accused engaged in a course of conduct against the other person; (b) the conduct consisted of abusive behaviour; (c) the accused intended to coerce or control the other person by the conduct; and (d) a reasonable person would consider the conduct likely to cause fear of violence or serious adverse impact on day-to-day life.

"Course of conduct" requires more than one occasion of conduct but does not require any specific minimum number; the conduct can be a pattern of one type of behaviour or a combination of types. "Abusive behaviour" is defined in the section and includes conduct that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm; conduct that isolates the other person; conduct that restricts movement, communication or finance; and conduct involving threats, monitoring, humiliation or degradation. The intimate-partner element catches current and former relationships including spouses, de facto partners and dating partners.

The reasonable-person limb is objective. The prosecution does not have to prove the protected person actually experienced fear or actual adverse impact. The question is whether a reasonable person, knowing what the accused knew at the time, would consider the conduct likely to cause one or both of those outcomes.

Penalties and likely outcomes.

The realistic range.

The offence is new. There is, as yet, no settled sentencing range. The maximum of 7 years places s 54D within the band of mid-tier indictable family violence offences. We expect the realistic outcomes to span CCOs and ICOs at the lower end, suspended sentence-equivalent intensive correction orders at the mid-point, and full-time custody at the upper end. Where the conduct is sustained, includes physical violence, or involves children, the realistic outcome moves towards custody.

Where s 54D sits.

The s 54D charge is often laid alongside or instead of charges under s 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) (stalk / intimidate) or s 14 (contravene AVO). The new offence allows the prosecution to capture a sustained pattern with one charge rather than relying on a series of single-incident charges. The defence implications are significant: the brief covers a longer period, the witness list is longer, and the cross-examination must be planned across the whole course of conduct rather than incident by incident.

Defences and arguments worth running.

The course-of-conduct element.

The prosecution must prove more than one occasion of conduct. Where the brief identifies only one occasion (or where the alleged earlier occasions cannot be proved to the criminal standard), the s 54D charge fails as a matter of law and an alternative single-incident charge is the realistic Crown case.

The intent to coerce or control.

The Crown must prove a specific intent. Conduct that is rude, demeaning or unkind but that is not engaged in for the purpose of coercion or control does not meet the element. The defence on this limb often turns on contemporaneous communications (texts, emails, messages) and on the surrounding context of the relationship.

The reasonable-person limb.

The objective limb requires the reasonable person, on the facts known to the accused, to consider the conduct likely to cause fear of violence or serious adverse impact on day-to-day life. Conduct that, in context, would not strike a reasonable person as likely to have either outcome (for example, a heated argument that did not involve threats, or a stand-down period in which the accused did not contact the complainant) may not meet the limb.

Defences and exceptions.

The section provides a defence where the course of conduct was reasonable in all the circumstances. The defence is on the accused (on the balance of probabilities). Reasonable conduct can include conduct directed at parenting arrangements, conduct in the context of family law proceedings, and conduct otherwise authorised by law. The defence is fact-specific.

What we do for clients facing this charge.

Coercive control matters are document-heavy. The first step is the brief: the police statement, the complainant's account, the text and message records, the social-media history, the bank records (where financial abuse is alleged), and any CCTV or third-party records. The whole period covered by the alleged course of conduct is in scope; a brief covering 18 months of conduct may run to hundreds of pages.

The second step is the timeline. We build a chronology of the alleged conduct alongside the surrounding context of the relationship. Where conduct that the prosecution characterises as coercive can be situated within a normal relationship pattern, the chronology is the foundation of the defence.

The third step is the cross-examination plan. The complainant will be the prosecution's principal witness. The cross-examination is planned around the chronology, the documentary record, and any inconsistencies between the complainant's account in earlier statements and the account given in evidence.

Where the matter resolves by plea, the sentencing exercise turns heavily on the subjective case. The accused's account of the relationship, evidence of insight, evidence of engagement with treatment programs (men's behaviour change, where appropriate), and any restitution or apology directed at the protected person all bear on the outcome.

What we tell clients on the first call.

The practical detail below is not legal advice for your matter. It is the version of the conversation the firm typically has with a client charged with coercive control in the first hour.

What evidence police usually rely on.

The complainant's statement, body-worn video from any call-out, copies of relevant text messages and call logs, the AVO terms relied on, and (in stalk/intimidate or coercive-control matters) the pattern evidence over time.

What to bring to the first consultation.

• The Court Attendance Notice (or charge sheet) and any bail papers.
• Anything police gave you in writing — fact sheet, certificate of analysis, search warrant copy, property seizure record.
• A short written timeline of the day, in your own words.
• A copy of every AVO (interim and final) that has ever been on foot; copies of relevant messages and call logs in chronological order.

Common mistakes in the first twenty-four hours.

• Talking to anyone other than your lawyer about the matter. Friends, family, co-accused and social media are not privileged.
• Deleting messages, photographs, posts or browser history. The trail left by deletion is often more damaging than what was there.
• Contacting the complainant or any prosecution witness, even through a third party.
• Replying to a message from the complainant, even if the message says "please just talk to me." The reply is the breach.

What not to say to police without advice.

You must give your name and address. You do not have to answer anything else, and in most cases you should not. The standard answer is: “I do not wish to answer questions. I want to speak to my lawyer.” Section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) protects silence; the narrow section 89A exception applies only on indictable matters and only where a special caution has been given in the presence of an Australian lawyer.

The timeline you can expect.

From charge to first court appearance is typically two to six weeks in the Local Court and longer where the matter is indictable. The brief of evidence is served by the prosecutor on a date set at the first mention. From service of the brief to first reply is typically twenty-eight days. Defended hearings and committals are then listed weeks or months out depending on the court list.

When an early plea may or may not be appropriate.

An early plea attracts a sentencing discount of up to twenty-five per cent if entered at the first available opportunity, but it locks in a conviction. The firm does not advise an early plea before the brief is served and read. An early plea on a single breach where contact is not in dispute may attract a section 10 or a non-conviction CRO. On a pattern of alleged contraventions, the brief is read first.

Court-specific notes.

If the matter is listed at the Downing Centre, Parramatta, Penrith, Burwood, Manly, Newtown, Waverley, Hornsby or Sutherland Local Court, the firm appears in person. Wollongong Local Court matters are run from the firm's Wollongong office. ACT Magistrates Court and ACT Supreme Court matters are run from chambers; the firm appears in person at all ACT mentions.

Recent outcomes · coercive control matters.

Anonymised outcomes from the firm's matter set. Names, dates beyond the year, and identifying details have been altered or omitted to preserve client confidentiality. Each result was determined on the particular facts and is not a guarantee of any future outcome.

Frequently asked.