A new offence — and a different kind of one
Until July 2024, the criminal law dealt with domestic abuse one incident at a time: an assault, an act of intimidation, a breach of an order. The coercive control offence is built on a different idea. It recognises that the harm in some relationships lies not in any single act but in a pattern — a sustained course of conduct that, taken together, coerces or controls another person. That shift, from incident to pattern, is what makes this offence new, and what makes these matters unlike most criminal charges.
Because the offence is so recent, the case law that will guide how it is interpreted, prosecuted and defended is still being written. That is a reason for care, not comfort: early matters are run without the settled guidance later ones will have, and the way a matter is approached at the outset carries real weight.
What the prosecution must prove
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 54D: an adult who engages in a course of conduct against a current or former intimate partner that consists of abusive behaviour, intending the course of conduct to coerce or control that person, commits an offence where a reasonable person would consider the course of conduct likely, in all the circumstances, to cause fear that violence will be used, or a serious adverse impact on the person's capacity to engage in some or all of their ordinary day-to-day activities.
The offence has several elements, and the prosecution must establish each:
- A course of conduct — behaviour engaged in repeatedly or continuously, not a one-off (defined in s 54G);
- Between current or former intimate partners — the relationship category is part of the offence;
- Consisting of abusive behaviour — as defined in the Act (below);
- An intention to coerce or control the other person — a specific state of mind the prosecution must prove, not merely that the conduct had that effect; and
- The reasonable-person test — that a reasonable person would consider the course of conduct likely to cause fear of violence, or a serious adverse impact on the other person's day-to-day life.
The intention element and the reasonable-person test are where much of the legal contest in these matters will sit. Proving that a course of conduct was intended to coerce or control — rather than being, for example, conflict, poor communication or the friction of a separation — is a demanding task, and it is assessed against the whole of the evidence.
What counts as abusive behaviour
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 54F defines abusive behaviour to include violence or threats, and patterns of behaviour that are coercive or controlling — including, among other things, financial or economic abuse, and behaviour that isolates, monitors or tracks a person.
The definition is deliberately broad, because coercive control can take many forms beyond physical violence: controlling finances, isolating someone from family or friends, monitoring movements or communications, repeated threats or degradation. The breadth is the point of the law — but it also means the line between the offence and the ordinary difficulties of a relationship has to be drawn carefully, and that is done through the elements above: the conduct must be a course of behaviour, intended to coerce or control, and meeting the reasonable-person test.
The legislation also recognises a defence of reasonableness — in substance, that the course of conduct was reasonable in all the circumstances. Where it applies, and how it is established, is a matter for advice on the specific facts.
Why these matters are unlike other criminal charges
Three features set coercive control matters apart, and each shapes how they have to be handled.
- They are built on patterns, not incidents. The case is the whole course of conduct over a period, assembled from many smaller pieces — which means the evidence is voluminous and the framing of it matters enormously.
- They run on digital evidence. Messages, call records, banking and financial records, location and device data — the proof of a "pattern" is overwhelmingly digital, and the full record routinely tells a fuller and more complex story than any selection from it.
- They are unforgiving of missteps. Because the law is new and the conduct examined is ongoing, steps taken after an investigation begins — continued contact, communications, dealing with shared finances or property — can themselves become part of the picture. Early guidance on what not to do is as important as anything else.
Dean appeared in the first prosecution brought under NSW's coercive control laws.
These cases are unlike most criminal matters: built on patterns rather than incidents, run on extensive digital evidence, and unforgiving of missteps. The clearest lesson from the first wave of prosecutions is that early, senior advice — engaged before positions harden — does more to shape the outcome than anything that happens later.
Referred to as a matter of experience. Every matter turns on its own facts.Penalties
The maximum penalty for the section 54D offence is 7 years' imprisonment. As always, the maximum marks the most serious end of the range and the sentence in any individual matter depends on its facts — the nature and duration of the course of conduct alleged, and the circumstances of the person charged. The point of stating the maximum is not alarm but proportion: this is a serious offence, treated as one, and approached accordingly from the start.
How Lenz Legal approaches coercive control charges
The method follows from what these matters are. It begins with the evidence in full — obtaining the complete digital record rather than the extracts assembled into the allegation, because a pattern built from selected pieces reads very differently when the whole is in view. It tests each element the prosecution must prove, the intention element and the reasonable-person test in particular, and considers the reasonableness defence on the facts. And because these matters rarely arrive alone — there is often a parallel AVO, bail conditions, and a family law dimension — the whole position is managed together rather than in pieces.
Above all, the lesson of the first prosecutions holds: in this area, the most valuable thing is early, senior advice, engaged before positions harden. If you have been charged, or police have contacted you about a current or former partner, get advice before you are interviewed and before any further contact. Every matter turns on its own facts.
Coercive control — your questions answered
When did coercive control become a criminal offence in NSW?
On 1 July 2024, under section 54D of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) — the first standalone offence of its kind in the state. It criminalises a course of abusive behaviour used to coerce or control a current or former intimate partner, rather than the individual incidents the law already covered. Because the offence is new, the case law guiding it is still developing.
What is the maximum penalty for coercive control?
Seven years' imprisonment. The maximum is reserved for the most serious cases; the sentence in any matter depends on the course of conduct alleged and the individual circumstances. The seriousness of the maximum is one reason careful, early advice matters.
Does the offence apply to ex-partners?
Yes — it applies to current and former intimate partners, so conduct after a relationship has ended can fall within it. That matters because much of what these prosecutions examine — messages, financial dealings, arrangements about property or children — happens during or after separation.
Police are investigating me for coercive control — what should I do?
Get senior advice early — before any interview and before positions harden. These matters are built on patterns assembled from extensive digital evidence, and the investigation often runs before any charge. What is said in an interview without advice, and continued contact of any kind, are the two things most likely to make a matter worse. You are entitled to legal advice before you answer questions.