“It Was Just a Message”: When Texts, DMs and Social Media Posts Become Criminal Charges in NSW
A lot of people charged over online conduct say the same thing at the start: it was only a message.
That is exactly why these matters catch people off guard. They did not turn up at someone’s house. They did not lay a hand on anyone. They sent a text, an Instagram message, a string of abusive WhatsApp messages, or posted something online in anger. Then police got involved.
In New South Wales, and under Commonwealth law, digital communication is not treated as legally trivial just because it happened on a screen. A phone can become the instrument of intimidation. A DM can become evidence. A “harmless” follow-up message after an argument can become a fresh charge if there is already an AVO in place. The law has moved with the way people now communicate, and many people are still living as though it has not.
That shift matters because online abuse is not rare anymore. The eSafety Commissioner’s latest research on Australian children aged 10 to 15 found that 52% had been cyberbullied, 24% had experienced online sexual harassment, and 23% had experienced non-consensual tracking, monitoring or harassment. eSafety also reported in February 2025 that valid cyberbullying complaints rose from 536 in 2019 to 2,978 in 2024, a 455% increase over five years. Those figures do not mean every nasty message is a crime, but they do show why police, regulators and courts are treating digital abuse as a real and growing harm rather than a private annoyance.
The central Commonwealth offence is section 474.17 of the Criminal Code. In broad terms, it makes it an offence to use a carriage service in a way that reasonable people would regard, in all the circumstances, as menacing, harassing or offensive. “Carriage service” is legal language that captures ordinary communication tools such as phones, text messaging, email and internet-based messaging platforms. The maximum penalty for the base offence is three years’ imprisonment, and Parliament has created aggravated forms of the offence for conduct involving private sexual material. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions specifically identifies these offences as part of its cyberbullying and threats work.
That wording is broader than many people expect. It is not confined to explicit threats to kill or injure. The law can catch repeated abusive messages, persistent unwanted contact, deliberately humiliating communications, or messaging conduct that would cause a reasonable person serious alarm or distress in context. The crucial point is that the court is not simply asking whether you personally thought you were joking, venting, or trying to “clear things up.” It is asking how the communication would be viewed objectively, in the real factual setting in which it was sent.
This is where people often get into trouble after a relationship breakdown. One message becomes six. Six becomes twenty. A person who feels ignored or provoked keeps sending texts, voice notes, emails or social-media messages. Sometimes the messages are apologetic. Sometimes they are pleading. Sometimes they turn hostile. People often imagine police will distinguish neatly between “real threats” and emotional overreaction. In practice, once the messages show a pattern of harassment, intimidation, monitoring or control, the legal risk rises quickly. NSW Police expressly warns that technology-facilitated abuse in domestic violence matters includes electronic communication used to bully, harass, stalk or intimidate a victim, making that person feel scared or unsafe.
That is also why online messaging often overlaps with state-based domestic violence law. If there is an Apprehended Violence Order in place, a message that seems minor to the sender may still amount to a criminal breach. The offence of contravening an AVO under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or 50 penalty units, or both. In other words, the legal system does not require physical attendance at someone’s home before it treats contact seriously. A text, missed call, DM, tag, indirect message through another person, or social media post may be enough depending on the conditions and the facts. That is why readers dealing with online contact issues should also look at Can Texts, Instagram Messages or Social Media Posts Breach an AVO in NSW? and Breach an AVO by Text, Instagram or “Just One Message”? In NSW, That Can Be Enough.
What makes these cases particularly dangerous is the quality of the evidence. People still act as though online conversations vanish. They do not. Screenshots, chat exports, metadata, service-provider records, cloud backups and seized devices all change the evidentiary picture. Police do not always need a confession where they have the messages, the account details, the surrounding context, and the complainant’s account. In fact, many defendants make their position worse by trying to explain themselves in interview before they understand exactly what is being alleged and what digital evidence already exists.
The issue becomes even more serious when the conduct forms part of coercive control. Since 1 July 2024, NSW has had a standalone coercive control offence in section 54D of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It targets a course of abusive behaviour by one current or former intimate partner against another, where the conduct is intended to coerce or control and is likely to cause fear of violence or serious adverse impacts. BOCSAR’s latest monitoring report found that between 1 July 2024 and 31 December 2025, NSW Police recorded 473 incidents of coercive control, and the most frequently recorded controlling behaviours included harassment, monitoring or tracking (56%), threats or intimidation (53%), financial abuse (52%), and shaming, degrading or humiliating behaviour (46%). Those figures matter because they show how often digital conduct is not just an isolated message issue, but part of a broader pattern police are now recording and prosecuting. For related reading, see Can a Pattern of Words, Isolation and Control Really Lead to Criminal Charges? and The New Coercive Control Law: What You Need to Know Before It’s Too Late.
The Judicial Commission’s material on abusive behaviour towards intimate partners is also a reminder that courts are looking at patterns, not just snapshots. That means a defendant can be badly mistaken if they focus on a single message and ignore the full history. In these matters, the court may consider previous communications, alleged monitoring, repeated accusations, humiliating posts, location tracking, and attempts to isolate or intimidate the other person. By the time a file reaches court, the prosecution narrative is often wider than the accused expected.
There are also practical misconceptions that repeatedly cause problems. One is the belief that consent or reconciliation after the fact wipes out the issue. It does not. Another is the belief that if the other person replied, the messages cannot be harassment. That is also wrong. A third is the belief that deleting messages helps. In some cases, it simply looks like consciousness of guilt and may destroy material that could otherwise have assisted the defence. National Criminal Lawyers® has already written about this wider digital risk in Texting While Angry: When Your Messages Become Criminal Evidence and AVO Condition 2 Explained: The No Contact Rule.
People also underestimate how quickly these matters can widen into other offences. A harassing message thread may sit alongside stalking or intimidation allegations. Private sexual material can trigger aggravated Commonwealth offences. Messaging in a domestic context can become evidence in AVO proceedings, bail applications, or coercive control prosecutions. What began as one panicked text can become the centre of a much larger criminal case. The CDPP notes that non-consensual sharing of private sexual material was previously prosecuted under section 474.17 before more specific aggravated offences were introduced in 2018, which shows how online conduct can move across multiple legal pathways depending on the facts.
So what should someone do if police call about messages, posts or online contact? The most important thing is to stop making the situation worse. Do not keep contacting the complainant. Do not try to negotiate privately. Do not assume a quick apology fixes the legal problem. Do not hand over a carefully worded explanation to police before getting advice. In many cases, what seems like a harmless act of self-help becomes fresh evidence. Early legal advice matters because it allows a defence lawyer to assess the exact offence, the digital trail, attribution issues, the context of the communication, possible overlaps with AVO conditions, and whether the matter can be addressed before it grows.
The hard truth is that NSW criminal law no longer treats online misconduct as somehow less real than face-to-face conduct. If anything, digital communication often makes prosecution easier because the words are preserved, repeated, and capable of being read back cold in court. What felt emotional and immediate at midnight can look deliberate and menacing under daylight, on a police brief, months later. That is the real danger.
Contact Us
If police have contacted you about text messages, Instagram messages, social media posts, repeated online contact, or an alleged AVO breach, get advice early. These matters can escalate quickly, especially where domestic violence allegations, coercive control claims, or private sexual material are involved. National Criminal Lawyers® regularly advises clients facing exactly these kinds of allegations and can help you understand what police need to prove, what evidence matters, and what steps should be taken now.
Call us at 1800 CRIM LAW for a free consultation. Help us help you understand your situation and get you the best outcome possible.
