Can Texts, Instagram Messages or Social Media Posts Breach an AVO in NSW?

A lot of people still think an Apprehended Violence Order only matters if someone turns up at the protected person’s house, follows them in a car, or threatens them face to face. But is that really how the law works now? What about text messages? What about WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, TikTok, email, location-sharing, or repeated missed calls? Can a person be charged even if they never physically go near the other person?

In NSW, the short answer is yes: digital contact can absolutely lead to criminal charges, and it often does. The law on AVOs, stalking and intimidation is broad enough to capture communication by modern technological means, and the Judicial Commission’s materials make clear that domestic violence law has evolved to address expanding forms of intimidation and abuse.

That is one reason this topic attracts so many clicks. People often search in panic after sending “just one message,” replying to a story, liking a post, messaging through a third party, or contacting the protected person because they believed it would be harmless or welcomed. But criminal law does not always treat online contact as minor just because it happened on a screen.

What is an AVO, and why does it matter?

An Apprehended Violence Order is a court order designed to protect a person from violence, intimidation, stalking, harassment, damage to property and related conduct. The Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) is the main legislation. The Judicial Commission’s AVO Bench Book explains that the Act is protective in purpose, and NSW courts approach these orders as an important preventative mechanism, not just as paperwork attached to a criminal case.

That is why people get into trouble when they treat an AVO as flexible or informal. Once an order is in force, the exact wording matters. The court order is not a suggestion. It is enforceable.

The key offence is in section 14 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). In plain English, a person commits an offence if they knowingly contravene a prohibition or restriction in an AVO made against them. The maximum penalty for the base offence is 2 years’ imprisonment or 50 penalty units, or both. The legislation also contains more serious variants for contraventions of ADVOs in certain circumstances, including where there is an intention to cause fear or harm, or where the defendant has previous convictions within the relevant period.

That alone should get people’s attention. Many members of the public assume an AVO breach is technical, minor or “not a real criminal offence.” That is wrong. A knowing breach can expose a person to imprisonment, and in some cases it can also trigger much more serious consequences for bail, sentencing and future dealings with the court.

What conditions are usually in an AVO?

Every case depends on the actual order, but the Act provides for standard prohibitions and restrictions. The legislation also provides that certain prohibitions are taken to be specified in every AVO, including restrictions that prohibit assaulting, threatening, stalking, harassing or intimidating the protected person, damaging their property, or harming an animal that belongs to or is in the possession of the protected person.

This matters because a person does not need an order to say, “Do not send an Instagram DM,” in those exact words for digital contact to become criminal. If the communication amounts to harassment, intimidation, stalking, or otherwise breaches a no-contact condition or another prohibition in the order, police may treat it as a breach.

Can online messages or social media really count?

Yes – and this is where many people get caught out.

The statutory definition of intimidation is broad, and the statutory definition of stalking is also broad. NSW’s domestic violence legislation expressly treats approaches made “by any means,” including telephone, text messaging, email and other technologically assisted means, as capable of amounting to intimidation in the right circumstances. The Act also reflects that stalking and intimidation concepts are not confined to physical pursuit and can extend to modern communications. The Judicial Commission’s equality materials likewise note that domestic violence can involve text messages, Facebook and GPS tracking of smartphones, which shows how seriously the courts and justice system now take technologically facilitated abuse.

That means the excuse, “But I never went near them,” is often legally beside the point.

If a defendant repeatedly texts, emails, tags, messages, monitors, calls, comments on posts, or uses apps to contact or unsettle a protected person, that conduct may support a breach allegation, and in some cases it may also support separate allegations of stalking or intimidation.

What about “just one message”?

This is where the public often wants a bright-line rule, but the law rarely gives one.

One message saying “Can we please talk?” may be treated very differently from fifty messages, a stream of abuse, a fake-account contact, or repeated indirect contact after being told to stop. Context matters. The wording of the order matters. The history between the parties matters. Whether there were existing allegations of fear, control, stalking or domestic violence matters. The Judicial Commission’s domestic violence materials stress that the law has expanded over time to address broader patterns of intimidation and stalking, not just old-fashioned physical confrontations.

That does not mean every trivial or accidental communication will result in conviction. It does mean people are reckless if they assume “small” digital contact is always safe. In criminal practice, some of the most damaging breaches are committed by people who genuinely believed an online message did not count.

What if the protected person replied, contacted you first, or wanted contact?

This is another area where people get themselves into trouble.

Many defendants say, “But they replied,” or, “They contacted me first,” or, “We were talking normally again.” Sometimes that may be relevant context. But it does not automatically cancel the order. Unless the order has been varied or revoked by a court, the defendant remains bound by it. An AVO is a court order, not a private agreement that can be switched on and off by the parties whenever emotions change.

That is one reason legal advice matters before sending anything at all. People often create avoidable criminal exposure by trying to “clear things up,” “explain themselves,” or “be polite.” A message that feels emotionally understandable may still be legally disastrous.

Can police use screenshots, phone records and social media evidence?

Yes. In practice, online breach cases are often built from screenshots, downloads, platform records, call logs, metadata, police body-worn material, admissions, witness statements and sometimes broader relationship history. NSW Police’s 2025 Domestic and Family Violence Guidelines show how significant domestic violence enforcement has become in practice, and the system is increasingly alert to technology-assisted abuse, including transaction messaging and digital patterns of control.

That means deleting messages after the fact is not a reliable strategy. Nor is assuming that a disappearing-message platform leaves no trail. The better question is whether the prosecution can prove the defendant knowingly contravened the order and what the surrounding context shows.

Can the same conduct also amount to stalking or intimidation?

Yes, sometimes.

Separate from breach proceedings, section 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act creates an offence of stalking or intimidating a person with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm. The legislation and NSW Police public guidance both make clear that stalking and intimidation are not limited to physical following; they can involve broader patterns of approach, surveillance, or technologically assisted harassment. The Act’s definition of stalking includes following a person, watching or frequenting places they attend, and courts may also consider a broader pattern of violence in deciding whether conduct amounts to stalking.

So, in the right case, a flood of online abuse or monitoring may be relevant not only to an AVO breach but also to a separate stalking/intimidation allegation or to a broader domestic violence narrative.

How do NSW courts treat domestic violence offending?

The Judicial Commission’s sentencing materials make clear that domestic violence offending is treated seriously and has been the subject of repeated legislative reform. The Commission notes that definitions of intimidation and stalking have expanded and that sentencing law now includes specific protections for victims in domestic violence matters. For example, before a court makes a conditional release order or community correction order for a domestic violence offender, it must consider the safety of the victim.

That matters because some defendants still imagine a digital breach will be seen as petty or merely emotional. Courts often see it differently, especially where the conduct forms part of a larger pattern of pressure, control, fear or disregard for court orders.

Contact Us

If you have been accused of breaching an AVO in NSW, of sending messages in breach of an ADVO, or of stalking or intimidating a person online, do not assume the matter is minor just because the contact happened digitally. A single message can be enough in the wrong context, and repeated digital conduct can quickly become a serious criminal issue.

National Criminal Lawyers® acts for clients across NSW facing AVO breaches, domestic violence allegations, stalking and intimidation charges, and related criminal proceedings in the Local Court and beyond. Early advice can make a substantial difference to how the case is approached, what evidence is challenged, and how your explanation is presented.

Call us at 1800 CRIM LAW for a free consultation. Help us help you understand your situation and get you the best outcome possible.