AVOs & Social Media: Can Online Posts Breach an Apprehended Violence Order?

If there is an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) in place, one of the enduring questions in today’s digital age is: Can a social media post, direct message, comment or emoji violate the terms of that order? The answer is yes: courts in NSW increasingly treat online conduct as a valid ground for AVO breach under s 14, Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).

At National Criminal Lawyers®, we’ve handled multiple cases where clients faced “contravene AVO – social media” allegations. It is not just face-to-face contact that matters now. This blog explains:

• What s 14 CDPVA 2007 says about contravening an AVO
• How social media posts (even indirect ones) can breach no-contact conditions
• Real or reported examples, including the “gossip blogger AVO breach” case
• The penalties, aggravating enhancements, and defences in AVO breach law
• Practical do’s & don’ts if you’re under an AVO
• Why you need an experienced AVO breach lawyer Sydney or contravene AVO defences expert

The Statutory Landscape: Section 14 CDPVA 2007
Section 14 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 makes it a criminal offence to knowingly contravene a prohibition or restriction in an AVO.
Key subsections include:

• s 14(1): penalty for knowingly breaching a condition – up to 2 years’ imprisonment or 50 penalty units (or both) in standard cases.
• s 14(1A): breach with intent to cause harm or fear – up to 3 years in more serious cases.
• s 14(1C): multiple breaches within 28 days – penalty up to 5 years or 150 penalty units in worst cases.
• s 14(4): if the breach involves an act of violence, the court must impose imprisonment unless the offender is under 18.

Before someone can be charged, the prosecutor must show:

1. A valid AVO existed, and you knew about its terms
2. You knowingly did something you were prohibited from doing (or failed to comply with a restriction)
3. In cases under s 14(1A) or s 14(1C), additional elements like intention, repeated noncompliance, or likely fear or harm must be proved.

Also, a person cannot be convicted of breaching s 14 unless:

• They were served with a copy of the AVO or present in court when it was made;
• Or, in the case of property recovery or court-ordered mediation, exceptions may apply.

A valid AVO existed, and you knew about its terms
You knowingly did something you were prohibited from doing (or failed to comply with a restriction)
In cases under s 14(1A) or s 14(1C), additional elements like intention, repeated noncompliance, or likely fear or harm must be proved.
Also, a person cannot be convicted of breaching s 14 unless:
They were served with a copy of the AVO or present in court when it was made;
Or, in the case of property recovery or court-ordered mediation, exceptions may apply.
 
Social Media & AVO Conditions: What Courts Accept
AVO conditions often include a “no contact” prohibition (sometimes referred to as Condition 2). That can extend to online actions. As National Criminal Lawyers® points out, “comment or respond to their posts on social media; DM them; send reaction emojis” can breach such a condition.

Courts have accepted that even a post about the protected person (without naming them) can be evidence of a breach if it is reasonably understood to relate to them.

Examples of conduct that may breach via social media:

• Liking, reacting, or commenting on a post of the protected person
• DMing or messaging about them
• Indirect tagging, memes, memes with insinuation
• Posting about them (even without naming) in a way that could cause fear or distress
  Retweeting or sharing a post about them

One media example: Megan Pustetto, a gossip blogger, was charged in NSW with contravening an AVO registered in NSW (originally from Victoria). Alleged breaches stemmed from podcast episodes and website content about the protected person, asserting false death claims.

These cases show social media is not outside the reach of AVO enforcement.
 
Real / Reported Examples & Sentencing Outcomes

Megan Pustetto AVO Breach (NSW)

• Pustetto published content in podcasts/articles referencing the protected person
• Police allege two contraventions of the AVO after registration in NSW
• The matter is ongoing; currently pleadings of not guilty filed, matter adjourned in Local Court.

Salim Mehajer: Instagram Post & AVO Condition

• Former developer Salim Mehajer was subject to an AVO after a separation
• Alleged to have posted a photo on Instagram after the AVO, claiming the post breached the order
• In that case, the court ruled the prosecution had not sufficiently proven Mehajer knew the condition.

NRL Star James Roberts

• Roberts called his ex-partner 33 times outside permitted hours (phone contact condition)
• Pleaded guilty to AVO breach
• Received a supervised conditional release order of 15 months (no conviction) due to mental health factors and early plea.

Though these examples aren’t always strictly social media, they illustrate how modern communication is folded into AVO enforcement.

Defences & What You Can Argue
If charged with “contravene AVO – social media breach”, these defences or mitigating strategy lines are common:

1. Lack of knowledge / no notice of condition
   You may not have known that the social media rule was included or you never got served properly
   If you were not served or present when the AVO was made, you may argue invalidity under s 14(2)
2. No intention / inadvertent breach
   The law requires knowing contravention. If the reaction or post was accidental or innocently made, that may help.2
3. Ambiguity / overbroad condition
   If the AVO condition is vague (e.g. “must not harass on social media”), you may argue uncertainty or overreach in how it is enforced
4. Mediation or property recovery exception
   Some limited breaches are lawful if they relate to court-mediated property recovery or court-mandated mediation under s 14(3) exceptions.
5. Proportionality, mitigation & plea
   Present remorse, early plea, no prior record, limited harm, argue for non-custodial penalty
6. Challenge evidentiary foundation
   Was the social media post properly attributable to you? Was it proven to link to the protected person? Was there insufficient proof of connection or knowledge?
   Defending such cases requires sharp technical arguments because digital conduct is easier to trace but sometimes easier to misinterpret.

Penalties & Sentencing Considerations
If convicted under s14, possible penalties include:

• Up to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine (50 penalty units) in standard breach cases.
• In violent breach (s 14(4)), imprisonment is mandatory unless the offender is under 18.
• For breaches under s 14(1A) or multiple contraventions (1C), heavier maximums apply (up to 3 or 5 years).
• If non-custodial sentence, court must give reasons for not imposing jail.

Sentencing factors courts weigh:

• The gravity of breach (threat, repeated or violent conduct)
• Intention / culpability and whether you meant harm or fear
• Impact on the protected person (fear, mental harm)
• Your record of compliance with the order to date
• Mitigating factors: mental health, provocation, early plea, genuine remorse
• The court’s statutory duty to protect the victim

Importantly, in many non-violent, first-offence social media AVO breach cases, courts avoid jail and prefer fines, bonds, or suspended sentences, especially with good defence advocacy.
 
Practical Tips: If You Are Under an AVO, Watch Your Online Conduct

• Review your AVO conditions carefully. If “no contact” includes social media, you must obey.
• Avoid commenting, reacting, messaging, sharing, tagging, even indirectly.
• If tempting to reply, don’t. The law only cares about your conduct, not theirs.
• Document your intent – innocent mistakes or misunderstanding can be important.
• Seek legal advice before posting anything that could relate to a protected person.
• If charged, preserve evidence: screenshots, metadata, account logs.

 Why Choose National Criminal Lawyers® for Social Media AVO Breaches?
If you are facing a “contravene AVO social media” charge or worried your online activity may cross the line, here’s what sets National Criminal Lawyers® apart:

• Digital law & AVO expertise: we understand how social media logs, DMs, metadata and platform behavior are used in court.
• Aggressive early strategy: we intervene before charges escalate, issuing letters, liaising with police, negotiating reductions.
• Sharp defence in court: we test attribution, knowledge, condition drafting, and push for overturn or dismissal.
• Strong track record in AVO breaches and non-conviction outcomes: many clients avoid jail and preserve clean records.
• Personal, no-nonsense style: we tell you clearly where risk lies, what’s realistic, and we stick with you through the process.

When your freedom, reputation, and relationships are on the line because of a silly post, you need a defence team who knows both technology and violence law.
 
Contact us, Sydney’s AVO condition and defence experts
Yes, a seemingly innocuous social media post can breach an AVO. NSW law treats digital conduct seriously under s 14 CDPVA 2007. Whether it’s a DM, comment, meme, or emoji, it may amount to contact or intimidation in the eyes of the law.

But it’s not hopeless. Strong defences exist, and outcomes often avoid jail if you act early and skillfully.

If you’re under an AVO or face alleged breach, contact National Criminal Lawyers® immediately. Let us assess whether your posts crossed the line, defend your rights, and guide you to the best possible outcome.
📞 1800 CRIM LAW.  Speak with a specialist AVO breach lawyer Sydney today.