Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
As the NSW court system reshapes its understanding of coercive control, lawyers must keep pace while preserving their most crucial responsibilities: clearing up confusion, identifying relevant evidence, and keeping their clients safe.
In January, the NSW Local Court’s imprisonment of Callum Fairleigh marked a significant turning point in the long road to criminalising coercive control. For the first time, the justice system had recognised intentional, ongoing patterns of non-physical abuse as serious, standalone criminal conduct.
The victim-survivor detailed her harrowing years of abuse to the national broadcaster, including shame and harassment, baseless accusations, and isolation from friends and family. It wasn’t until she called police in late 2024 – having been locked out of the apartment – that she learnt of coercive control.
In July that year, it was solidified as a criminal offence, following extensive consultation with domestic violence victim-survivors, frontline services, law enforcement, and lawyers.
According to recent BOCSAR data, NSW police have recorded 682 reports of coercive control, each involving five distinct controlling behaviours: harassment, monitoring or tracking; threats or intimidation; financial abuse; shaming, degradation or humiliation; and social isolation or cultural abuse.
Over 40 charges have been laid and four sentences imposed – one received an 18-month intensive correction order, another was given two years’ imprisonment, a third was ordered to serve a two-year community corrections order, and the last was to serve two years and three months’ imprisonment.
There has also been a number of reviews in the years since, including the statutorily required report under the Crimes Act 1990 and a Law Enforcement Conduct Commission review of police officers involved in domestic and family violence. The latter identified eight complaints, including three that allegedly occurred after the coercive control legislation came into effect.
The Local Court of NSW also recently introduced a practice note for domestic and personal violence proceedings to promote consistency, improve efficiency, improve communication between the legal profession and law enforcement, and ensure proceedings are trauma-informed and culturally respectful.
Speaking to Lawyers Weekly, Justice Network director Hayder Shkara said the practice note was published to avoid inconsistencies between apprehended domestic violence orders (ADVOs) and other court orders, such as bail conditions, Children’s Court orders, and existing family law orders.
It also provides for related apprehended violence order (AVO) applications and domestic violence charges to be listed together, and adjournments “will not be granted solely to allow representations to be made to the prosecution”. There are several elements for practitioners to be particularly aware of.
“Lawyers should prepare evidence and obtain instructions early; missing the timetable can have significant consequences. For clients with parallel family law proceedings, lawyers should coordinate dates, advice and safety planning across both matters.
“The practice note specifically aims to reduce inconsistencies between AVOs and other court orders, and requires relevant Family Law Act orders to be brought to the Local Court’s attention when an interim AVO is being varied,” Shkara said.
For family lawyers, it is important to note that making coercive control a criminal offence did not change the role of family courts, which Shkara explained were already able to consider patterns of controlling behaviour as family violence. What it has done is give the issue “greater public visibility”.
“What used to be called a ‘controlling relationship’ or describing a partner as ‘controlling’ has now changed to people using the term ‘coercive control’. I see this as a huge change as people are understanding this is now a criminal offence and it’s not OK to be ‘the controlling type’ in a relationship,” Shkara said.
As for clients, lawyers should be aware of the risk that, much like Fairleigh’s victim, they may not be able to recognise their experiences as coercive control. Shkara said they may also have become accustomed over the course of a relationship.
“A client may minimise behaviour they have lived with for years, or may not have kept records because the behaviour seemed ordinary at the time. They may also worry they will not be believed if there was no physical violence,” Shkara said.
To best assist, Shkara advised building up an evidentiary picture of coercive control – start with a clear chronology, record the behaviour (including approximate dates and context), and note how it impacted the client and any children.
“Then identify material that may support or explain the account: messages, emails, financial records, medical or counselling records, photographs, police or other agency records, and evidence from people who observed relevant events or their effects,” Shkara said.
“For example, a single message demanding to know where someone is may be ambiguous on its own. Its significance may be clearer alongside repeated location checks, restrictions on seeing family, threats when the person does not respond, and records showing the effect of their daily activities.”
Above all, Shkara said family lawyers should help their clients to reduce confusion “by making sure the account, evidence and safety issues are communicated consistently”.
