AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 24 February 2026

R v Lay

[2026] NSWDC 64

Sexual offencesAssault & violenceDomestic & family violencePublic order & justice offences
CRIME SENTENCE ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM INTIMIDATION THREATEN TO DISTRIBUTE INTIMATE IMAGE COMMON ASSAULT (FORM 1 CERTIFICATE)

Citation: [2026] NSWDC 64
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 February 2026
Judge(s): Colefax SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a man aged 28 at the time of the offending, was sentenced for five offences committed against his intimate partner between March and July 2024. The couple had commenced their relationship in July 2023. The offences comprised three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, one count of intimidation, and one count of threatening to distribute an intimate image. A further count of common assault was listed on a Form 1 certificate to be taken into account on sentence for one of the assault charges.

The offending occurred in the context of a deeply controlling and violent domestic relationship. The offender had no history of similar conduct in four prior intimate relationships. The sentencing judge noted this change in personality and indicated it would be addressed in his reasons. The victim suffered repeated physical assaults — many inflicted while she was confined in the offender's motor vehicle for prolonged periods — as well as a sustained campaign of psychological intimidation involving threats to kill her and her mother, threats to distribute intimate images of her, and directions that she install surveillance cameras in her own bedroom and inflict harm upon herself while the offender watched remotely.

The agreed statement of facts, supplemented by other material before the Court, disclosed an escalating pattern of violence and coercive control spanning several months. The offender's conduct included striking the victim repeatedly to the face and body, confining her in a vehicle for periods of up to eight or nine hours during which assaults continued, sending detailed written "rules" threatening extreme violence if she interacted with one of his friends, and directing her via text message and live camera feed to punch herself in the face and slam her head against a wardrobe door.

  • Objective seriousness of each offence: Assessment of the gravity of each of the five offences (and the Form 1 matter), having regard to the nature of the violence, the duration and context of the offending, the injuries sustained, and the psychological harm inflicted.

  • Appropriate sentence for each offence: Determination of the appropriate custodial sentence for three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s 59(1), Crimes Act 1900), one count of intimidation (s 13(1), Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007), and one count of threatening to distribute an intimate image (s 91R(2), Crimes Act 1900), taking into account the applicable maximum penalties — including the reduced two-year maximum for the intimate image offence by reason of the s 166 certificate.

  • Totality and accumulation: How the individual sentences should be structured, including questions of concurrence and accumulation, to reflect the overall criminality.

  • Mitigating and aggravating factors: Consideration of any subjective factors in the offender's favour (including the apparent change in personality and the absence of prior offending of this nature) and statutory aggravating factors, particularly that the offending was committed in a domestic relationship context.

  • Relevance of the Form 1 matter: How the common assault on the Form 1 certificate (sequence 3) should be taken into account in sentencing for the associated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (sequence 4).

Decision

The sentencing judgment, delivered as revised ex tempore reasons, set out the facts of each offence in considerable detail. His Honour described the offending as a course of sustained domestic violence characterised by escalating physical assaults, prolonged confinement, coercive control, and psychological terror.

With respect to the assault occasioning actual bodily harm offences, the Court found the conduct to be serious. Sequence 1 involved the offender striking the victim two to three times with the back of his hand to the face, causing bleeding and bruising to her lips, motivated by anger that she had not found another woman for him to be intimate with. Sequence 4 involved assaults over a period of approximately eight to nine hours while the victim was confined in the offender's vehicle, resulting in injuries including a split lip, facial swelling, scratches, and thigh bruising. Sequence 6 involved four separate assaults during another prolonged confinement in the vehicle, including punches to the face, slamming her face, and striking her with a mobile phone and water bottle.

The intimidation offence (sequence 9) was described in terms that made clear the Court regarded it as particularly grave. Over the course of 3–4 July 2024, the offender sent a document of controlling "rules" threatening to kill the victim, followed by text messages offering her a "choice" between being harmed with a knife or having her mother harmed, and directing her — while watching on a remotely accessed bedroom camera — to hit herself in the face and slam her head against furniture until she bled. The offence concluded with threats to assault the victim if she attempted to leave the relationship.

Regarding the threat to distribute intimate images (sequence 12), the Court noted the submission made on the offender's behalf that the images were never actually distributed. However, his Honour observed that the offence is constituted by the threat itself, and it formed part of a broader pattern of coercive intimidation.

Note: The text of the judgment provided for this summary was truncated and does not include the sentencing remarks concerning subjective factors, findings on objective seriousness, or the final sentences imposed. Accordingly, the specific sentences, aggregate term, non-parole period, and detailed reasoning on mitigating or aggravating factors cannot be reported with confidence.

Orders Made

  • The specific orders and sentences imposed are not available from the truncated portion of the judgment provided. The offender was sentenced for all five offences, with the Form 1 common assault taken into account on sentence for sequence 4.

[Practitioners seeking the full sentencing orders should consult the complete judgment on NSW Caselaw.]

Key Takeaways

  • Coercive and controlling behaviour, including imposing written "rules" backed by threats to kill, forcing the installation of surveillance cameras, and directing the victim to self-harm under remote observation, was treated as a significant feature in assessing the objective seriousness of the domestic violence offending, even where such conduct did not itself form a separate charge.

  • The District Court repeatedly drew attention to the prolonged confinement of the victim in the offender's motor vehicle (eight to nine hours in one instance, five hours in another) during which assaults were inflicted, drawing the inference that this confinement must have caused considerable fear and treating it as a significant aggravating feature that elevated the gravity of the offending.

  • Under s 91R(2) of the relevant legislation, the offence of threatening to distribute intimate images was treated as part of an integrated pattern of coercive control. The Court rejected any suggestion that the offence was less serious because the images were not ultimately distributed, holding that the offence is constituted by the threat itself.

  • Sufficient weight was given to the statutory aggravating factor that the entire course of offending occurred within an intimate personal relationship, with the Court emphasising the vulnerability of the victim and the exploitation of trust, including the offender's persuading her to provide intimate images early in the relationship.

  • Although the offender had four prior relationships without similar conduct, the question of what brought about the change in personality carried limited mitigating weight given the gravity of the offending.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(1), 61, 91R(2)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 13(1), 39
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166 (referred to regarding the jurisdictional limit on the intimate image offence)

Cases:
- No cases were identified as cited in the judgment metadata or the available text.