AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Local Court 30 January 2026

R v Fairleigh

[2026] NSWLC 2

Domestic & family violencePublic order & justice offences
C OERCIVE CONTROL OFFENCE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT IS APPROPRIATE PARK V THE QUEEN [2021] HCA 37 APPLIED

Citation: R v Fairleigh [2026] NSWLC 2
Court: Local Court of NSW
Date: 30 January 2026
Judge(s): Donnelly LCJ

Background

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of coercive control under s 54D of the Crimes Act 1900, a relatively new offence introduced by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The conduct took place between July and December 2024 and involved a sustained course of behaviour intended to coerce the victim, including shaming, humiliating, harassing, and causing damage to her property. No physical violence was alleged in this case.

The prosecution elected to proceed in the Local Court, which imposed a jurisdictional ceiling of two years imprisonment. Seven offences of contravening an apprehended violence order (AVO) under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 were placed on a Form 1, meaning they were to be taken into account in sentencing for the principal coercive control offence without separate penalty.

The victim provided a victim impact statement describing severe and lasting psychological harm, including PTSD, chronic anxiety, panic attacks, loss of identity, and impaired capacity to trust others.

  • Whether the seven contravene-AVO offences on the Form 1 could properly be taken into account given the two-year jurisdictional cap and the acknowledged need for a custodial sentence
  • Whether the s 5 threshold under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (requiring a court to be satisfied no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate) was crossed for the coercive control offence
  • How to approach sentencing for the principal offence given the Local Court's jurisdictional maximum, applying Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37
  • What non-parole period was appropriate in the circumstances

Decision

Issue 1: The Form 1

The court considered whether to reject the Form 1 given the volume of offences it contained and the constraints of the two-year jurisdictional limit. After applying Abbas v R [2013] NSWCCA 115 (a five-judge Court of Criminal Appeal decision on Form 1 procedure), the court declined to reject the Form 1, accepting that the prosecution had properly proceeded in this way, though acknowledging the position was borderline. The court also noted the significance of AVO contraventions, referencing Suksa-Ngacharoen v R [2018] NSWCCA 142, which emphasises that breaching an AVO is a breach of a court order designed to protect a specific person.

Issue 2: The s 5 threshold and nature of the offence

The defendant's legal representative conceded, and the court accepted, that the s 5 threshold was crossed: no penalty other than imprisonment was appropriate for the coercive control offence. The court noted that while the offence provision can encompass physical violence, no such conduct was alleged here. The harm in this case was psychological and financial in nature, sustained over approximately five months.

Issue 3: Applying the jurisdictional cap under Park

Following Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37, the court confirmed that the maximum penalty for the offence, seven years, remained relevant to the sentencing exercise even though the Local Court's jurisdictional limit was two years. Applying that principle, the court assessed the appropriate sentence (inclusive of a 20% utilitarian discount for the guilty plea and taking into account the Form 1 offences) at 28 months. Because that figure exceeded the two-year jurisdictional limit, the court reduced it to 24 months imprisonment in accordance with Park.

Issue 4: Non-parole period

The court found special circumstances existed and, applying Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120, imposed a non-parole period of 15 months as the minimum period justice required. The sentence was backdated, with pre-sentence custody rounded up to 13 months. The non-parole period was set to run from 15 January 2024 and to expire on 14 April 2026.

Orders Made

  • Total term of imprisonment: 24 months
  • Non-parole period: 15 months, commencing 15 January 2024 and expiring 14 April 2026
  • Pre-sentence custody acknowledged and backdated (rounded to 13 months)
  • Seven contravene-AVO offences taken into account on Form 1
  • For a separate offence of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception (involving a different victim): Community Corrections Order of 18 months
  • Compensation ordered to the victim of that separate offence

Key Takeaways

  • The Local Court applied Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37 to confirm that the statutory maximum for a coercive control offence (seven years) is relevant to the sentencing exercise even where the Local Court's two-year jurisdictional cap applies, and the sentence must then be reduced to that cap.
  • A sentence of imprisonment was found appropriate for a coercive control offence involving a sustained course of psychological and financial harm over approximately five months, even where no physical violence was involved.
  • Under s 54D of the Crimes Act 1900, the coercive control offence is framed as a course-of-conduct offence, and the court treated the cumulative and ongoing nature of the behaviour as directly relevant to the sentencing exercise.
  • Victim impact statements admitted under s 27(4)(e) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 played a role in contextualising harm for sentencing purposes, with the court linking the victim's psychological injuries to the recognised purpose of sentencing under s 3A(g), being recognition of harm done to the victim and the community.
  • Where a Form 1 contains multiple offences and the court is already constrained by a jurisdictional ceiling, the question of whether to reject the Form 1 requires careful consideration, though here the court declined to do so, treating the case as borderline.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act, 54D
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, ss 3A(g), 5, 27(4)(e)

Cases
- Abbas v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
- Josefski v R [2010] NSWCCA 41
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37
- Suksa-Ngacharoen v R [2018] NSWCCA 142