The Offence of Use Carriage Service to Menace, Harass or Cause Offence in NSW

New South Wales police officers arrested a 26-year-old woman at her home on Wallumedegal land in the Sydney suburb of Meadowbank at 4.30 pm on 22 December 2025, and she was subsequently charged at Gladesville police station over allegedly making an offensive phone call to a well-known nutritionist, but as the case went to court last week, it appears the incident involved a pocket dial.

Eastern Suburbs Police Area Command initiated inquiries into the offensive call. This was done under Operation Shelter, which is a NSW police initiative established in October 2023 to investigate fallout from “conflict in the Middle East”, including antisemitic incidents, following the 49-year-old nutritionist Mandy Sacher reporting that she’d received a call that had caused her immediate fear.

As the case went before Burwood Local Court on 15 January 2026, the NSW police put to the court that 26-year-old Bunnings worker Serena Tonuri had left an antisemitic voicemail on Sacher’s phone, as Mandy thought she’d heard faint gunshots during the blank message and in the post-Bondi mass murder climate, this caused the nutritionist of Jewish faith to feel “immediate fear and nervousness”.

Serena sent two text messages to Mandy at 8.26 pm on 20 December 2025. In the first, Serena said, “Hey, how are you? Is this Mandy?” The second read: “I saw somewhere that you helped Katie from Married at First Sight with nutrition. I was wondering if you could help me as well. Serena.” Then, at 1.30 am on 21 December, a blank voicemail mysteriously appeared from that same number.

The accused’s lawyer Osman Samin told the press last week that it was “a case of charge first, and answer questions later”. The criminal defence lawyer put to the court last Thursday that his client had accidentally made the call and was unaware of it.

Tonuri has severe intellectual and cognitive disabilities, is supported by the NDIS, and is said to not really understand the “Middle East crisis”.

“All of the circumstances of this case point in one direction, it is an accidental call,” Samin clarified. “She is not antisemitic. She doesn’t even understand the conflict.” The lawyer further suggested that the gunshots heard during the pocket dial “could be a bed creaking or someone snoring”.

When pocket dials menace

Tonuri has been charged with one count of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, contrary to section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). This offence can see a person convicted spending up to five years in prison.

The prosecution will have to prove that Tonuri was the individual using the phone at the time the blank message was left, that the content of the message was menacing, harassing or offensive and that a reasonable person would regard the voicemail to be “in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive”.

Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) defines a carriage service as “a service for carrying communications by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy”. This definition covers mobile phones, in terms of calls and texts, and the internet, including the use of emails and social media platforms.

Section 474.17 further qualifies that the offence can apply to offenders who menace, harass or cause offence to NRS providers, or those providing carriage services for deaf people, as well as emergency call operators, an employee of emergency services organisation and Australian public service employees working for the National Security Hotline.

Defences against a section 474.17 charge

A number of defences are open to a person charged with the section 747.17 offence of use carriage service to menace, harass or offend.

These include the defence of duress, which maintains that an accused perpetrated their crime in order to avoid a threat by someone else being carried against them or a loved-one. The suggested threat posed has to have been great enough to have warranted committing the crime to avoid it.

The defence of necessity is also available. This means that a defendant claims they committed a crime in order to avoid a much greater harm or more dire circumstances if they had not broken the law.

But in Tonuri’s case, her defence lawyer might simply put it to the court that his client didn’t actually make the offending call.

Apprehended violence order

“The 26-year-old, who is also being hit with an AVO pleaded not guilty today,” said Channel Nine reporter Hayley Francis on 15 January out the front of Burwood courthouse.

“The case is listed for next month when a decision will be made on whether the charge is dropped, or if the matter goes to a hearing.”

So, it appears that Sacher has applied to take out an apprehended violence order, or an AVO, against Tonuri, under section 48 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).

An AVO is imposed against a person who is alleged to have engaged in abusive conduct towards another in order to bring a halt to the behaviour. An AVO specifies that its subject cannot engage in certain types of conduct with the person who the order has been applied to protect.

Mandatory conditions apply to AVOs. These include preventing the subject of an AVO from assaulting or threatening, stalking, harassing or intimidating or intentionally causing damage to the property of or an animal belonging to the protected person.

Additional conditions can be made to apply to an AVO, and in this case, conditions may include a ban on phoning, text messaging or any further pocket dialling of the protected person.

Six discrete criminal offences apply to apprehended violence orders in NSW. The basic offence of contravening an apprehended violence order sits under subsection 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act. This offence carries up to 2 years prison time and/or a fine of $5,500.

An aggravated form of the offence is contained under subsection 14(1A) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act, which involves breaching an AVO to cause harm to the protected person or to cause them fear for their safety. This crime carries up to 3 years inside and/or a fine of $11,000.

The offence of persistently contravening an apprehended violence order, under subsection 14(1C) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act, carries up to 5 years in gaol and/or a fine of $16,500. This further aggravated offence involves breaching an AVO at least three times within a 28 day period.

If the Sacher requested AVO is in place, this may mean that another pocket dial could constitute a breach of the order, and as pocket dials are accidents beyond a phone owner’s control, Tonuri may want to give her electronic device a rest.

Image of Nokia Lumia 800 in a pocket by Martin Abegglen under CC BY-SA 2.0