Charged with stalking or intimidation in NSW.

The legislative source.

The offence has three elements: (a) the accused engaged in stalking or intimidation, (b) the accused did so with the intention of causing the complainant to fear physical or mental harm, and (c) the accused either intended that fear or knew that the conduct was likely to cause that fear.

"Intimidation" is defined in s 7 of the Act and includes harassment, molestation, an approach by any means that causes fear for safety, and conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension of injury or damage to a person or property. "Stalking" is defined in s 8 and includes following a person, watching or frequenting a person's home, workplace or place of social activity, and contacting the person by any means.

Penalties and likely outcomes.

Range of outcomes.

For a first-offence stalk/intimidate with no violence (a single threatening message, one episode of following), a CRO is realistic. For a course of conduct (repeated messages over weeks, surveillance at the home, in-person approaches), a CCO or ICO is more likely. A section 10 outcome is available where the conduct was at the lowest end of the spectrum and the subjective case is strong.

Aggravating circumstances.

Targeting a person with whom the accused has a domestic relationship (which is most of the matters that come through the Local Court), use or threat of weapons, breach of an AVO at the same time, prior matters of the same kind, and a course of conduct over a long period all elevate the sentence.

Defences and arguments worth running.

Lack of intent.

The Crown must prove the accused intended to cause fear or knew the conduct was likely to do so. Where the conduct was a misjudged attempt to reconcile, an inadvertent presence at a location, or a single ambiguous communication, intent may not be established at the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Lawful conduct.

Conduct in pursuit of a lawful right (lawful access to a child under a Family Court order, legitimate attempts to recover property, lawful presence at a workplace) is not stalking or intimidation. The boundary between lawful conduct and intimidation is one of the live issues in these matters.

The complainant's response.

The complainant's actual response is admissible context but is not the test. Where the complainant did not appear to fear the accused (continued to invite contact, did not change behaviour), the inference of intent to cause fear can be challenged.

Identification.

For digital communications (anonymous calls, throwaway accounts), the prosecution must prove the accused was the person sending them. Where the link cannot be made, the offence is not made out.

What we do for clients facing this charge.

The first task is to identify exactly what conduct is alleged. Stalking and intimidation cases often involve a course of conduct over weeks or months; the prosecution case is sometimes a list of incidents that, taken individually, look ambiguous. Each incident is analysed separately. Where the incidents cannot be linked, or where the inferences from any one incident are weak, the strength of the case at hearing is materially different from the strength on the bench sheet.

For plea matters, the strategy is a careful subjective case with attention to mental health (where relevant), addiction (where relevant), restorative material if the complainant is willing, and a clear submission against the section 21A factors in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

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 stalking or intimidation 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 · stalking and intimidation 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.