Threatening a Pet Can Be Intimidation

"I'd rather kill the dog than give it to you." In a recent appeal to the NSW District Court, a man convicted of intimidation argued that he did not intend to cause fear with these words and was simply asserting ownership of the dog. He had admitted saying words to that effect. He simply said they were never meant to frighten anyone. The Court's answer is a powerful illustration of how domestic violence law in New South Wales actually works — and why threats against animals are treated so seriously.

After a Local Court hearing that ran across nine days, a man was convicted of two domestic violence offences against his former partner: a common assault from October 2020, and intimidation from September 2022. Seven other charges were dismissed. He appealed both convictions to the District Court, where the appeal proceeds as a rehearing on the transcripts and exhibits — meaning the appeal judge forms their own view of the evidence, while giving appropriate weight to the Magistrate's advantage in seeing the witnesses in person.

The assault conviction concerned an incident in which the Magistrate accepted that the man had lain on top of his former partner in bed, his body weight making it difficult for her to breathe, until her adult son and his friend rushed in after hearing her distressed calls. The District Court found no error in that conviction and dismissed that limb of the appeal.

But it was the intimidation charge that produced the judgment's most significant reasoning. Intimidation has two limbs the prosecution must prove: first, that the accused engaged in intimidating conduct; and second, the mental element — that he intended to cause the victim to fear physical or mental harm. The appeal turned on both.

"If You Leave, I'll Slit Your Puppy's Throat"

The charge arose during a weekend horse event at the couple's rural property. After an earlier confrontation in which the man verbally abused his partner and snatched a cigarette from her mouth, she decided to leave — taking her adult daughter and two puppies with her.

According to the evidence of both women, as they tried to leave with the dogs, the man threatened one puppy in particular — the one his partner's daughter cared for and was deeply attached to — saying words to the effect of "if you leave, I'll slit your puppy's throat and hang it by the fence." He then blocked the path to the front door, raised a closed fist, and took the car keys so the women could not drive away.

The man's version was different — but only up to a point. He denied the exact words, but admitted under cross-examination that he told his partner: "I'd rather kill the dog than give it to you." His explanation? He owned the puppy, he'd paid for it, and he was simply making an emphatic point about ownership. No malice. No threat.

Here's the remarkable part: the District Court was prepared to accept that his version of the words might possibly be true. And he was still guilty.

The First Limb: Even His Own Version Was Intimidating Conduct

The Court held that whether conduct is "intimidating" is an objective question. What matters is whether the conduct would cause a reasonable person, standing in the victim's shoes, to apprehend harm — including harm to an animal belonging to, or in the possession of, someone in a domestic relationship with them. The accused's private intentions play no role at this first stage; they belong to the second limb.

Viewed objectively, both versions of the statement carried the same sting: a declared willingness to kill a puppy that the daughter loved and cared for, delivered in the heat of an angry confrontation, moments after verbal abuse, and reinforced by blocking the door and confiscating car keys. A reasonable person in the former partner's position would fear both for the animal and for her own safety.

The Court also emphasised something many people don't realise: the NSW Parliament has expressly recognised the intersection between animal abuse and domestic violence in the legislation itself. Threats against pets are a recognised tool of coercion — a way of controlling a person by targeting something they love — and the law treats them accordingly.

The Second Limb: Did He Intend to Cause Fear?

This was the man's strongest card, or so he thought. His evidence was that his only intention was to assert his rights as the dog's owner — and if he intended to frighten anyone, it could only have been the daughter, not his former partner, the named victim in the charge.

Here the law contains a feature that surprises many people. Although intimidation is an offence of intent, the legislation provides that a person "intends" to cause fear if he knows his conduct is likely to cause fear in the other person. In other words, the prosecution can succeed by proving either an actual intention to frighten, or knowledge that fear was the likely result. And the prosecution never has to prove the victim actually was afraid.

The Court squarely rejected the ownership explanation as implausible. Nobody disputed that he had paid for the puppy — so there was no need to announce it. What he actually added was a chilling statement of his willingness to harm an animal he knew was beloved by his partner's daughter.

His knowledge was then inferred from everything surrounding the moment. He knew he had verbally abused his partner only fifteen minutes earlier. He knew she was determined to leave, and that his requests for her to stay had fallen on deaf ears. He knew the horse event was to continue the next morning in front of dozens of guests. And critically, the Court looked at what he did immediately after the threat — blocking her path to the door and taking the car keys — as a window into his state of mind when he made it. This was a man doing whatever it took to stop her leaving. The Court had no reasonable doubt that he knew his words would likely instill fear in her. Both limbs were proven, and both convictions stood.

What This Case Means for You

If you're facing an intimidation charge, understand this: your explanation of what you "really meant" may not save you. The first limb is judged objectively, and on the second limb, the court doesn't need to find you set out to frighten anyone — knowledge that fear was the likely result is enough, and that knowledge can be inferred from the whole circumstances, including what you did before and after. Imagine a heated separation where one partner says the family dog "won't be around much longer" if the other leaves, then pockets the car keys. Even if that person insists they'd never harm an animal, the words and conduct together can complete the offence.

If you've experienced threats like these, the case confirms that threats against your pets, or the pets of your children or family members, are taken seriously by NSW courts as domestic violence offending in their own right. You don't need to have been physically harmed, and you don't need to prove you were actually afraid.

And if you're considering an appeal from a Local Court conviction, this judgment is a candid demonstration of how hard the road can be. A District Court appeal is not a fresh trial — it's a rehearing on the papers, where credibility findings made by a magistrate who saw the witnesses carry real weight. Appeals succeed on demonstrated error, and identifying genuine error requires experienced legal analysis, not just disagreement with the result.

Domestic violence allegations — whether you're defending them or protected by them — move quickly and carry serious consequences, including AVOs, criminal records and imprisonment. At Surge Legal, our criminal law team appears regularly in NSW Local and District Courts on domestic violence charges, AVO proceedings and conviction appeals. If you've been charged, served with an AVO, or believe your conviction involved an error, get advice early.

📞 (02) 8551 7851 📩 Contact us online | Book a consultation

For more information about how we can help, visit our Criminal Law page.

This article is a general summary of Byers v R [2025] NSWDC 119 for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Surge Legal to discuss your individual circumstances.