Breach of an Intervention Order SA: Penalties, Defences and Bail
Breach of an intervention order in South Australia
A breach of an intervention order charge can carry years in prison, take away the presumption of bail and follow a person into every police check. Talon Legal defends contravention charges in the Magistrates Court, from a single text message to repeat and violent contraventions, and makes the bail applications that come with them. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021 now.
Breach of an intervention order key facts
| Issue | Position in South Australia |
|---|---|
| Governing law | Section 31 of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA), version in force from 1 July 2026. |
| The offence | Contravening a term of an intervention order (section 31(1), (2) and (2aa)). |
| Program terms | Contravening an intervention program term: $2,000 or 2 years, expiable on payment of $315 (section 31(1)). |
| Other terms | 3 years imprisonment, or 5 years if aggravated (section 31(2)). |
| Repeat or violent | A second or subsequent contravention within 5 years, or one involving physical violence or a threat of it: 7 years, or 10 years if aggravated (section 31(2aa) and (2ab)). |
| Aggravation | The offender knew or suspected, or ought reasonably to have known or suspected, that a child was reasonably likely to see, hear or be exposed to the conduct or its effects (section 31(5)). |
| Court | A summary offence dealt with in the Magistrates Court, with committal to the District Court if a sentence over 5 years is warranted (section 31(7)). |
| Fault | Strict liability. The prosecution must prove the acts were intentional or reckless, not that the defendant knew they breached the order. |
| Consent | A protected person cannot give permission for a contravention (section 17(c)). |
| Bail | A contravention involving violence or threats makes the person a prescribed applicant (Bail Act 1985 section 10A(2)(ba)). |
| First step | Same-day free 30-minute consultation. Call (08) 7094 2021. |
Charged with breaching an intervention order? The offence explained
A breach of an intervention order is an offence under section 31 of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA), which makes it an offence to contravene a term of an intervention order. The penalty depends on which term was contravened, whether it is a repeat contravention, whether violence or a threat was involved and whether a child was likely to be exposed. This page states the law current to 5 November 2026.
The intervention orders page explains how orders are made, contested and varied. A contravention often comes with a charge of assault, covered in domestic violence charges, and with a bail problem, covered in Bail SA and bail reviews.
Free Consultation. An arrest for a contravention usually means a bail application within a day. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
On this page
- What are the penalties for breaching an intervention order?
- What does the prosecution have to prove?
- Is it a defence if the protected person agreed?
- What defences are available?
- How do courts sentence a contravention?
- What happens to bail after a contravention charge?
- How similar cases tend to play out
- How we defend a breach of intervention order charge
- Breach of intervention order case law
- Frequently asked questions
What are the penalties for breaching an intervention order?
The maximum penalty for breaching an intervention order in South Australia ranges from $2,000 or 2 years to 10 years imprisonment, depending on the term contravened and the circumstances (section 31):
| Contravention | Basic offence | Aggravated offence | Section |
|---|---|---|---|
| A term requiring an intervention program assessment or program | $2,000 or 2 years; expiation fee $315 | No aggravated form | 31(1) |
| Any other term | 3 years | 5 years | 31(2) |
| A second or subsequent contravention, or a contravention involving physical violence or a threat of physical violence | 7 years | 10 years | 31(2aa) |
A contravention is a second or subsequent one only if the person has been found guilty of an earlier contravention committed within the 5 years before the alleged offence (section 31(2ab)). The offence is aggravated if the offender knew or suspected, or ought reasonably to have known or suspected, that there was a reasonable likelihood a child would see, hear or otherwise be exposed to the conduct or its effects (section 31(5)), and the aggravating circumstances must be stated in the charge (section 31(6)).
Every contravention is prosecuted as a summary offence in the Magistrates Court. If the Court decides a sentence of more than 5 years is warranted, it must commit the person to the District Court for sentence (section 31(7)). Where the contravention involved violence or a threat, the Court can also order a contribution to the cost of an intervention program (section 31(2a)).
The penalties increased on 4 April 2022. Before then, the maximum for a contravention of an ordinary term was $10,000 or 2 years, and for a repeat or violent contravention $20,000 or 4 years, with no aggravated form. Several of the sentencing decisions on this page were decided under those lower maxima.
What does the prosecution have to prove?
The prosecution must prove that an intervention order was in force against the defendant, what its terms were, and that the defendant did something the terms prohibited, or failed to do something they required.
An order only binds once it is served. A police interim order comes into force when served personally (section 18(4)). A Court interim order, a substituted final order and a variation each take effect on service, which can be personal service, service in a manner the Court authorises, or the defendant being present when the order is made (sections 21(8) and (8a), 23(5) and (5a), and 26(7) and (7a)). Until a variation is served, the order in its earlier form continues to bind (section 26(7)).
Contravention is an offence of strict liability. The prosecution must prove that the acts making up the breach were intentional or reckless, but not that the defendant intended to contravene the order or knew the acts amounted to a contravention (RB v Police [2022] SASC 77 at [66]). The Supreme Court in RB applied Police v Beukes [2011] SASC 9, decided under the earlier domestic violence legislation, which also held that the prosecution must exclude an honest and reasonable mistake of fact if one is raised ([10]).
Is it a defence if the protected person agreed?
No. A protected person cannot give permission for a contravention of the order (section 17(c)), and the issuing authority must try to make sure both parties understand that. Only the Court can change the terms, on an application to vary under section 26.
The Supreme Court has said it is of the utmost importance that intervention orders be observed at all times, and that it is beside the point that no harm or threat of harm resulted on a particular occasion (Jones v Police [2020] SASC 188 at [36]). In Jones, three contraventions where the appellant was with his former partner with her consent still led to imprisonment. They were his eleventh to thirteenth.
The protected person’s role does matter at sentence. In Hann v Police [2019] SASC 213, the protected person had come to live at the appellant’s home and made no complaint about him ([10]). The Chief Justice concluded the contravention did not warrant imprisonment ([16]) and substituted a conviction without penalty ([58]).
The protected person is not guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a contravention of their own order, unless the conduct also contravened the order in respect of another protected person or another order (section 31(3)).
What defences are available?
Because contravention is a strict liability offence, defences turn mostly on the facts and the paperwork:
| Issue | What it involves |
|---|---|
| No contravention | The conduct fell within an exception or condition in the order, such as permitted contact for child handovers (section 12(2)), or did not fall within the term at all. |
| Not served | The order, or the variation relied on, had not been served when the conduct occurred (sections 18(4), 21(8), 26(7)). |
| Identity and proof | The evidence does not prove that the defendant was the person who did the act, or that the act happened. |
| Not intentional or reckless | The acts making up the breach were not intentional or reckless (RB at [66]). |
| Honest and reasonable mistake of fact | Once raised, the prosecution must exclude it (Beukes at [10]). |
A mistaken belief that the order has ended is unlikely to be reasonable. In Beukes the Court remarked, without deciding, that the formality of service and the information given with an order would show a reasonable person that only the Court can change it ([13] to [14]).
At a contested hearing, an unrepresented defendant must be told of their rights about cross-examining the protected person. In Harwood v Police [2019] SASC 129, a conviction was set aside and a retrial ordered because the defendant had not been given the information he needed to make informed choices ([23], [28] to [29]).
How do courts sentence a contravention?
Courts treat contraventions seriously because the orders exist to protect people. The Supreme Court has said:
- the effectiveness of intervention orders will be undermined if courts do not respond appropriately to their breach (Lang v Police [2019] SASC 97 at [33]);
- the protective objects of the Act can only be achieved if courts are scrupulous in securing compliance (Craill v Police [2016] SASC 168 at [28]);
- breaches are treated with a high level of seriousness to deter reoffending and keep the orders effective, and a breach incidental to another purpose is not for that reason inadvertent (Joseph v Police [2020] SASC 218 at [42], [44]);
- breaching an order the victim obtained to protect herself is a matter of particular gravity, calling for personal deterrence (R v McMutrie [2002] SASC 253 at [18], [23]).
Even a minor breach is not trivial, but the circumstances still matter. In RB v Police, the appellant went to a school to arrange a parent-teacher interview, not knowing his child had started there. The Court found the offence was at the lower end and, although no breach of such an order is trivial ([78]), set aside the recording of a conviction because of the real risk to his security clearance and employment ([95]).
The outcomes in reported appeals show the spread:
| Case | The contravention | Result |
|---|---|---|
| RB v Police [2022] SASC 77 | Attending a school within the order's exclusion distance to book a parent-teacher interview | No conviction recorded on appeal ([95]) |
| Hann v Police [2019] SASC 213 | The protected person living at his home, with no complaint | One month set aside; conviction without penalty ([16], [58]) |
| Joseph v Police [2020] SASC 218 | Knowingly driving within 100 metres of the protected person's home on the way elsewhere | Conviction and 15-month bond upheld ([44], [50]) |
| Jones v Police [2020] SASC 188 | Eleventh to thirteenth contraventions, with the protected person's consent | Imprisonment upheld ([36], [44]) |
| Lang v Police [2019] SASC 97 | Assaulting the protected child's mother and a police officer in the child's presence | Six months within range, but part suspended on appeal ([40], [44] to [45]) |
These are examples, not a scale, and most were decided under the lower maxima in force before 4 April 2022.
What happens to bail after a contravention charge?
Police can arrest and detain a person without a warrant if they have reason to suspect a contravention (section 36(1)). Bail then depends on the charge:
- Violence or threats. A person taken into custody for a section 31 offence involving physical violence or a threat of physical violence is a prescribed applicant, and bail is refused unless they establish special circumstances (Bail Act 1985 section 10A(1) and (2)(ba)).
- Mandatory home detention. An adult charged under section 31(2aa)(b) in respect of a recognised domestic violence order can only be bailed on home detention with an electronic monitoring device (Bail Act 1985 section 11(2ae) and (2af)).
- Other contraventions. Unless another category in section 10A applies, the ordinary presumption in favour of bail applies, but the likelihood of breaching an intervention order is a listed matter (Bail Act 1985 section 10(1)(b)(iv)).
For a prescribed applicant, the risk Parliament had in mind is further defiance of the order with violence, and conditions that merely address that risk are not themselves special circumstances (R v Fox [2017] SASC 5 at [19], [40]). A repeat contravention by a threat to stab the protected person was typical of the class in R v Peters [2020] SASC 191, and bail was revoked ([21] to [22]). Special circumstances were found in R v Ravesi [2016] SASC 128, where the risk was confined to one person, home detention premises were about 20 km away and refusal would have caused unintended hardship ([13], [19]). The bail reviews guide covers how these applications are argued.
How similar cases tend to play out
Three illustrations of how section 31 applies on ordinary facts. They are not predictions. The result depends on the order, the conduct, the record and the court.
Lower range. A father subject to a no-contact order replies to his former partner’s text about their son’s sport, with no threats. He has no record. It is a contravention of an ordinary term under section 31(2), and her message is not a defence (section 17(c)), but an isolated, non-threatening reply sits at the lower end, and whether a conviction is recorded can be argued, as RB shows.
Middle range. A woman with two earlier contraventions in the last three years goes to her former partner’s house to collect belongings and argues with him at the door. Because of the earlier findings of guilt within 5 years, the charge is under section 31(2aa)(a), with a maximum of 7 years. The court will treat the repetition as serious, as in Jones.
Upper range. A man pushes his former partner during an argument while their children are in the next room, in breach of a recognised domestic violence order. The charge is under section 31(2aa)(b), aggravated by the children’s likely exposure under section 31(5), with a maximum of 10 years. He is a prescribed applicant for bail, and any bail must be home detention with electronic monitoring.
How we defend a breach of intervention order charge
A contravention charge usually arrives with an arrest, a bail hearing and an order that still has to be obeyed. We deal with bail first, then test the charge.
| Stage | What happens | What we do |
|---|---|---|
| Arrest | Police arrest without a warrant on reason to suspect a contravention. | Speak to police and the client early, and prepare for bail. |
| Bail | A bail application, which may need special circumstances or home detention. | Build a release plan that answers the risk: address, distance, supervision and monitoring. |
| The charge | The prosecution must prove the order, service, the term and the conduct. | Obtain the order, any variations and proof of service, and check the charge tier and any aggravation. |
| Plea or hearing | A plea with mitigation, negotiation on the charge, or a contested hearing. | Challenge the tier or aggravation where the facts do not support it, and put the context to the court. |
| Sentence | A penalty within the maximum for the tier. | Argue the circumstances, the protected person's role, and whether a conviction should be recorded. |
We cannot promise a particular result, and no lawyer can. We can make sure the court sees the facts and the order as they really were.
Every hour matters. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation, or call (08) 7094 2021 now.
Breach of intervention order case law
These are the Supreme Court decisions this guide relies on. The case notes state what each court decided.
| Case | Court | Principle | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| RB v Police [2022] SASC 77 | Supreme Court | Strict liability; even minor breaches not trivial; no conviction recorded on the facts | [66], [78], [95] |
| Police v Beukes [2011] SASC 9 | Supreme Court | Strict liability; honest and reasonable mistake of fact must be excluded if raised | [10], [13] to [14] |
| Jones v Police [2020] SASC 188 | Supreme Court | Orders must be observed at all times; consent and no harm do not make contraventions harmless | [36], [44] |
| Hann v Police [2019] SASC 213 | Supreme Court | Protected person living with the defendant: no imprisonment warranted | [10], [16], [58] |
| Joseph v Police [2020] SASC 218 | Supreme Court | Breaches treated with a high level of seriousness; incidental is not inadvertent | [42], [44], [50] |
| Lang v Police [2019] SASC 97 | Supreme Court | Orders lose effect if courts do not respond to breach | [33], [40], [44] to [45] |
| Craill v Police [2016] SASC 168 | Supreme Court | Courts must be scrupulous in securing compliance | [28] |
| R v McMutrie [2002] SASC 253 | Court of Criminal Appeal | Breach of an order the victim obtained is a matter of particular gravity | [18], [23] |
| Harwood v Police [2019] SASC 129 | Supreme Court | Unrepresented defendant must understand cross-examination rights; retrial ordered | [23], [28] to [29] |
| R v Fox [2017] SASC 5 | Supreme Court | Bail: risk of further defiance with violence; conditions alone not special circumstances | [19], [40] |
| R v Peters [2020] SASC 191 | Supreme Court | Bail: repeat contravention by threat typical of the class; bail revoked | [21] to [22] |
| R v Ravesi [2016] SASC 128 | Supreme Court | Bail: confined risk and hardship amounted to special circumstances | [13], [19] |
Case notes
RB v Police [2022] SASC 77
The appellant went to a high school to arrange a parent-teacher interview, not knowing his youngest child had started there, and was within the order’s exclusion distance. McDonald J held the offence is one of strict liability, so knowledge of the contravention need not be proved ([66]). The offence was at the lower end, though even minor breaches are not trivial ([78]). The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the sentence was varied so that no conviction was recorded ([95]).
Police v Beukes [2011] SASC 9
Under the predecessor domestic violence legislation, Vanstone J held the offence of contravening a restraining order is one of strict liability. The prosecution must prove the acts were intentional or reckless and must exclude an honest and reasonable mistake of fact if it is raised ([10]). Her Honour’s doubts about whether a mistaken belief that the order had ended could be reasonable were expressly beyond what the appeal required ([13] to [14]).
Jones v Police [2020] SASC 188
The appellant’s eleventh to thirteenth contraventions involved being with his former partner with her consent. Nicholson J said orders must be observed at all times, whether or not harm or a threat of harm resulted ([36]), and the sentence of imprisonment was upheld ([44]).
Hann v Police [2019] SASC 213
The protected person had come to live at the appellant’s home and made no complaint ([10]). Kourakis CJ concluded that the contravention did not warrant imprisonment ([16]) and, given time already served, substituted a conviction without penalty ([58]).
Joseph v Police [2020] SASC 218
The appellant knowingly drove within 100 metres of the protected person’s home on his way to another appointment. Hughes J said breaches are treated with a high level of seriousness to deter reoffending and keep the orders effective ([42]), and that a breach incidental to another purpose is not inadvertent ([44]). The conviction and bond were upheld ([50]).
Lang v Police [2019] SASC 97
The appellant assaulted his partner and a police officer in the presence of her daughter, the person protected by the order. Hinton J said the effectiveness of intervention orders will be undermined if courts do not respond appropriately to breach ([33]). Six months was within range ([40]), but ordering the whole term to be served was manifestly excessive ([44]), and part of it was suspended ([45]).
Craill v Police [2016] SASC 168
The appellant repeatedly contravened an interim order and bail after an assault on his former partner. Stanley J said the protective objects of the Act can only be achieved if courts are scrupulous in securing compliance ([28]), and the appeal was dismissed.
R v McMutrie [2002] SASC 253
Under the predecessor restraining order scheme, the Court of Criminal Appeal said the breach of an order the victim had obtained to protect herself is a matter of particular gravity ([18]), and that personal deterrence was significant because court orders must be obeyed ([23]).
Harwood v Police [2019] SASC 129
In a contested contravention trial, an unrepresented defendant was not properly told about his rights in relation to cross-examining the protected person. Lovell J said the court must make sure the accused understands their rights and has the information needed to make informed choices ([23]). The conviction was set aside and a retrial ordered ([28] to [29]).
R v Fox [2017] SASC 5
The applicant was a prescribed applicant for a contravention involving a threat of violence. Hinton J held the risk contemplated is further defiance of the order with violence ([19]), and that conditions addressing that concern do not amount to special circumstances ([40]). Bail was refused.
R v Peters [2020] SASC 191
On a Director’s review, Livesey J found that a repeat contravention involving a threat to stab the protected person was typical of the class Parliament had in mind, and that the Magistrate had overlooked the respondent’s status as a prescribed applicant ([21] to [22]). Bail was revoked.
R v Ravesi [2016] SASC 128
The applicant was charged with contravening an interim order by assaulting his half-brother. Nicholson J found the risk confined to that person and reduced by premises about 20 km away ([13]), and concluded that refusing home detention bail would cause unintended hardship and injustice ([19]). Home detention bail was granted.
Frequently asked questions
What is the penalty for breaching an intervention order in SA?
It depends on the term and the circumstances. Contravening an ordinary term carries up to 3 years imprisonment, or 5 years if a child was likely to be exposed (section 31(2) and (5)). A repeat contravention within 5 years, or one involving violence or a threat, carries up to 7 years, or 10 years if aggravated (section 31(2aa)).
Is breaching an intervention order a criminal offence?
Yes. Contravening a term of an intervention order is an offence under section 31 of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009, prosecuted in the Magistrates Court.
Will I go to jail for breaching an intervention order?
Not necessarily. Imprisonment is available for every contravention and courts treat breaches seriously, but outcomes range from no conviction recorded to imprisonment, depending on the conduct, any repetition and the record.
Is it a breach if the protected person contacted me first?
Yes, if the reply contravenes a term of the order. A protected person cannot give permission for a contravention (section 17(c)). Their role can still be relevant to penalty.
Does the prosecution have to prove I knew I was breaching the order?
No. Contravention is a strict liability offence. The prosecution must prove the acts were intentional or reckless, but not that the defendant knew they amounted to a contravention. An honest and reasonable mistake of fact must be excluded if it is raised.
What makes a breach aggravated?
A contravention is aggravated if the offender knew or suspected, or ought reasonably to have known or suspected, that a child was reasonably likely to see, hear or otherwise be exposed to the conduct or its effects (section 31(5)). The aggravation must be stated in the charge.
What counts as a second or subsequent contravention?
A contravention where the person has been found guilty of an earlier contravention committed within the 5 years before the alleged offence (section 31(2ab)). It raises the maximum to 7 years, or 10 years if aggravated.
Can police arrest me without a warrant for breaching an intervention order?
Yes. A police officer who has reason to suspect a contravention can arrest and detain the person without a warrant (section 36(1)).
Can I get bail after being charged with breaching an intervention order?
Often, but it depends on the charge. A contravention involving violence or threats makes the person a prescribed applicant who must show special circumstances, and an adult charged under section 31(2aa)(b) for a recognised domestic violence order can only be bailed on home detention with electronic monitoring.
Is the protected person charged if they invited the contact?
Generally not. A protected person is not guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a contravention of their own order, unless the conduct also contravened the order in respect of another protected person or another order (section 31(3)).
Can a conviction be avoided for a breach of an intervention order?
In some cases. The Supreme Court has said no breach of such an order is trivial, but in RB v Police it set aside the recording of a conviction for a lower-end breach because of the real risk to the appellant’s employment.
Do I need a lawyer for a breach of intervention order charge?
The charge tier, any aggravation, bail and whether a conviction is recorded can all turn on how the facts are presented. We can advise on the charge and make the bail application. Call (08) 7094 2021.
South Australian courts we attend for intervention order charges
We defend contravention charges and make bail applications in the Adelaide Magistrates Court and the suburban and regional Magistrates Courts listed below, and appear on bail reviews and appeals in the Supreme Court.
Courts we attend
Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.