Charged with contravening an AVO in NSW.

The legislative source.

The offence has three elements: (a) an AVO was in force against the accused, (b) the accused knew that the AVO was in force and knew its content, and (c) the accused did an act that contravened a specific prohibition or restriction. The contravention can be a direct breach (contacting the protected person where contact is prohibited) or an indirect breach (a third party communicating on behalf of the accused).

s 14(4) creates a presumption of imprisonment where the act constituting the offence was an act of violence against a person. The court may depart from the presumption but must do so on identified grounds. The presumption does not apply where the offender was under 18 at the time of the offence.

Penalties and likely outcomes.

Range of outcomes.

For a first contravention with no violence (e.g., a text message to the protected person seeking reconciliation), a CRO or a fine. For a contravention with violence (e.g., physical assault), the presumption of custody kicks in. ICO of 12-24 months is the most common custodial alternative. Section 10 is rare and is reserved for contraventions at the lowest end of the spectrum (an inadvertent breach, a single brief contact).

Repeated breaches.

A second or subsequent contravention within a short period elevates the sentence. The cumulative effect of breaches is treated seriously. Most habitual breachers face full-time custody on a third breach.

Subjective factors.

Mental health condition (treated and supported by a report), addiction (engaged with treatment), absence of violence, no prior breach, employment, family responsibilities. All of these reduce the sentence.

Defences and arguments worth running.

No knowledge of the order or its content.

The Crown must prove that the accused knew the order was in force and knew the prohibition that was breached. Where the AVO was made in the accused's absence (ex parte interim) and the accused was not served with the explanation of the prohibitions, knowledge of the content may not be made out.

No contravention.

Where the act alleged does not, on a strict reading of the prohibition, breach the order, the act is not a contravention. The wording of the prohibition matters. "Not to approach" versus "not to come within 100 metres" produces different results on the same facts.

Honest and reasonable mistake of fact.

Where the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the prohibition did not apply (e.g., where the protected person initiated the contact and the accused believed the order was varied), the defence is available.

Duress.

Where the contravention was procured by duress (a child needing emergency assistance, for example), the defence is available. Narrow but useful in particular fact patterns.

What we do for clients facing this charge.

The first task is to identify the precise prohibition that was breached and to obtain a copy of the order as served. The order is the document the accused was on notice of; its precise wording controls the analysis.

Plea path.

The subjective case is the centre of gravity. Mental health diagnosis where relevant (psychologist or psychiatrist briefed), evidence of treatment, the absence of any prior breach, family responsibilities. The submission addresses the s 14(4) presumption directly and identifies why a non-custodial sentence is justified on the facts.

Defended path.

The hearing focuses on knowledge of the prohibition and the precise act. CCTV, mobile phone records, and the protected person's statement are tested. Where the protected person initiated the contact, the contact is admissible context but does not amount to a defence.

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 a contravention of an apprehended violence order 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 · contravene AVO 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.