Abusive Behaviour Towards Intimate Partners

Division 6A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (the Act) creates a specific criminal offence aimed at addressing coercive control within intimate relationships. Instead of isolating single incidents, the law targets a sustained pattern of behaviour that, taken together, is said to dominate, intimidate, or control an intimate partner. This
represents a significant shift in NSW criminal law. Conduct that may appear minor or explainable on its own can become criminal when framed as part of an alleged broader strategy of control. As a result, courts must assess context, continuity, and intent with care.

Law

Division 6A of the Act applies to adults who engage in a course of conduct directed at a current or former intimate partner. An intimate partner includes a spouse, former spouse, de facto partner, or a person involved in an intimate personal relationship, regardless of whether that relationship involved sexual activity. The definition is intentionally broad.

An offence is committed where an adult repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour that amounts to abuse and does so with the intention of coercing or controlling the other person. The prosecution must also establish that a reasonable person would regard the conduct, viewed as a whole, as likely to cause fear of
violence or a serious adverse impact on the other person’s ability to carry out ordinary day-to-day activities. Actual fear or harm does not need to be proven.

Abusive behaviour includes violence, threats, intimidation, and conduct designed to dominate or control. It extends to financial abuse, surveillance or monitoring, humiliation, isolation, damage to property, harm to animals, deprivation of liberty, and unreasonable regulation of daily life. The court must assess the totality of the
behaviour rather than dissecting each act in isolation.

A course of conduct does not need to be continuous, uninterrupted, or confined to New South Wales. Conduct occurring over time, with gaps between incidents, or across jurisdictions may still amount to a single course of conduct for the purposes of the offence.

Division 6A of the Act contains an express defence where the accused raises evidence that the conduct was reasonable in all the circumstances. Once raised, the prosecution must disprove reasonableness beyond reasonable doubt. This defence plays a central role in contested cases.

What the prosecution is required to prove

• The accused was an adult at the relevant time.
• The complainant was a current or former intimate partner of the accused.
• The accused engaged in behaviour that was repeated, continuous, or both.
• When assessed as a whole, the behaviour amounted to abusive behaviour under the Division 6A of the Act.
• The accused intended the behaviour to coerce or control the complainant.
• A reasonable person would consider the behaviour likely to cause fear of violence or a serious adverse impact on ordinary daily activities.

Each element must be proven. Failure on any one element requires acquittal.

Standard of proof

The prosecution must prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court must evaluate the evidence in its entirety and acquit if a reasonable doubt remains. This includes doubt about whether a true course of conduct exists, whether the behaviour is properly characterised as abusive, or whether the accused had the required intent to coerce or control. The seriousness of the allegation does not lower the standard.

Possible defences

1, Reasonableness of conduct
If evidence suggests the conduct was reasonable in all the circumstances, the prosecution must disprove that claim beyond reasonable doubt. Context, necessity, proportionality, and purpose are critical to defend these charges.

2. No course of conduct
The offence requires a pattern. Disconnected, exaggerated, or sporadic allegations may fail to establish a single course of conduct when closely analysed.

3. Conduct not abusive in law
Not all unpleasant or dysfunctional relationship behaviour meets the statutory definition of abuse. The defence may argue the conduct lacks the quality of coercion or control required by the law.

4. Forensic weaknesses in the prosecution case

Although the prosecution does not need to prove every alleged incident as a standalone offence, it must still present a coherent and reliable overall narrative. Inconsistencies, vagueness, and credibility issues remain powerful defence tools.

Allegations under Division 6A of the Act are serious, complex, and aggressively prosecuted by the NSW Police. These allegations require careful analysis of patterns, intent, and reasonableness, not assumptions or emotional reactions.
The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 7 years. If you are facing an investigation or charge under this Division 6A of the Act, early and strategic advice is critical. Pannu Lawyers is widely recognised as Best

Criminal Lawyers in Sydney and is trusted to defend serious criminal matters with precision, discipline, and force.

Frequently Asked Questions