Coercive control is now a crime in NSW – but what exactly is the offence, and what does the prosecution need to prove?
On 1 July 2024, NSW became one of the first Australian jurisdictions to criminalise coercive control as a standalone offence. The reform was years in the making, driven by advocacy from domestic violence support organisations, by the evidence of high-profile inquest findings, and by mounting research showing that the most dangerous and lethal domestic violence situations were often characterised not by a single dramatic assault but by a sustained, pattern-based campaign of control, isolation, surveillance, and psychological domination that left victims unable to leave even when their lives were at risk.
Now approaching two years into the offence’s operation, coercive control prosecutions are building. BOCSAR figures show domestic violence court proceedings reached a record high of 45,984 in 2025, reflecting both an increase in DV offences recorded by police and a higher likelihood of charges being laid. Police are being trained in how to investigate and evidence coercive control patterns, and prosecutors are developing the skills to present these complex, pattern-based cases to courts. If you have been charged with coercive control, or if police are investigating your relationship history as part of a broader DV investigation, understanding what this offence actually requires is critical.
The offence – what section 54D of the Crimes Act says
The coercive control offence is found at s 54D of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence is made out where a person engages in a course of conduct against a current or former intimate partner, the course of conduct is abusive, and the person intends the conduct to coerce or control the partner.
Three elements require separate proof. First, there must be a “course of conduct” – the offence cannot be made out by a single act, no matter how serious. The legislation requires a pattern of behaviour extending across time. Second, the course of conduct must be abusive within the meaning of the Act – which captures behaviour that causes the partner to fear violence, causes serious alarm or distress with a substantial adverse effect on their daily activities, or degrades or humiliates the partner. Third, the person must intend the conduct to coerce or control the partner. This is a subjective mental element that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The maximum penalty is 7 years’ imprisonment. This places coercive control in the same sentencing range as many serious assault offences and reflects Parliament’s explicit intention that systematic coercive control be treated as seriously as physical violence.
What the law means by “course of conduct”
The course of conduct requirement is both the defining feature of the offence and one of the primary challenges for prosecutors. Unlike a conventional assault charge, which can be established by proof of a single incident, coercive control requires the prosecution to establish a pattern. The Judicial Commission of NSW has noted in its materials on this offence that no single act of controlling or degrading behaviour will typically suffice – what matters is the accumulation and pattern of conduct over time.
In practice, this means prosecutions involve detailed investigation of the relationship history over months or years. Prosecutors build their case through: the complainant’s detailed account of the relationship across time, messages and communications on all platforms, financial records showing control of accounts and access to money, records of the accused monitoring the complainant’s devices or social media, witness accounts from family members, friends, and workmates who observed the relationship or the complainant’s changed behaviour, medical records showing psychological impact, GP notes, and therapy records.
The categories of abusive conduct
The Crimes Act identifies several types of conduct that can constitute the abusive course of conduct required for the offence. These include: behaviour that causes the partner to fear for their safety or the safety of another person (including children); behaviour that causes serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect on the partner’s ability to carry out their day-to-day activities; behaviour that humiliates, degrades, or demeans the partner; and behaviour that harasses or monitors the partner.
In real relationships, prosecutors have built cases around combinations of: monitoring phones, emails, and social media accounts without consent; controlling access to money and finances; restricting who the partner can see, speak to, or spend time with; dictating clothing and appearance; repeated psychological humiliation in front of others or in private; isolating the partner from family and support networks; using children as tools of control or threatening to remove them; controlling the partner’s movement and daily schedule; and using surveillance technology including tracking apps and hidden devices.
The substantial adverse effect requirement
For behaviour to satisfy the “serious alarm or distress” limb of the offence, the prosecution must show not just that the partner was distressed, but that the distress had a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities. This is a meaningful threshold. Prosecutors typically evidence this through: changes in the complainant’s work attendance or employment history, social withdrawal from friends and family, deterioration in physical health, mental health records showing anxiety, depression, or PTSD, evidence of the complainant being unable to make independent decisions, and accounts from friends and family of visible changes in the complainant’s demeanour and behaviour over time.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has documented the health impacts of partner violence and psychological abuse extensively, and this material is increasingly cited in coercive control prosecutions to provide context for the kind of adverse effects the legislation is designed to address.
The intent element – where many defences focus
The requirement that the accused intended to coerce or control the partner is a subjective mental element. The prosecution must prove what was actually in the accused’s mind – not what a reasonable person would have understood, but what the accused actually intended. This is a significantly higher bar than proving that the conduct occurred or that the partner felt controlled.
Defence arguments in coercive control cases often focus precisely here: that the conduct, even if established, reflected poor communication, mutual relationship difficulties, cultural or personal background, or responses to the partner’s own behaviour rather than a calculated campaign of domination designed to coerce and control. The intent element requires the prosecution to rule out these alternative explanations beyond reasonable doubt. A relationship that was difficult or unhappy, that involved arguments and controlling behaviour on both sides, or that reflected dysfunctional patterns rather than deliberate domination presents real challenges for a prosecution built on the intent requirement.
How coercive control intersects with other charges
Coercive control charges rarely appear in isolation. Most prosecutions also include: ADVO applications under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act, stalking or intimidation charges under s 13 of the same Act, and in some cases assault charges where physical violence is part of the pattern. Under the 2026 DV reforms, the new covert stalking offence specifically addresses the tracking device element that frequently forms part of a coercive control pattern. The new Serious Domestic Abuse Prevention Orders allow for stringent ongoing supervision of those convicted of or assessed as posing a coercive control risk. National Criminal Lawyers’ practice in domestic violence offences includes navigating all of these overlapping frameworks.
What to do if you are charged
A coercive control charge is a serious indictable matter that will be heard in the District Court if the prosecution elects. It carries a maximum of 7 years and requires a comprehensive defence strategy that engages with the full relationship history rather than a single incident. Do not attempt to manage this without specialist legal advice. The pattern-based nature of the evidence means that early engagement with a lawyer – who can gather countervailing evidence about the relationship, assess the prosecution’s case, and develop a coherent defence narrative – is essential.
At National Criminal Lawyers, we have advised on coercive control matters from the very introduction of the offence. These cases require careful, thorough engagement with complex evidence patterns and a defence strategy that challenges the prosecution’s narrative at every point.
Call us at 1800 CRIM LAW for a free consultation. Help us help you understand your situation and get you the best outcome possible.
