I think you first need to go to the legal test that's in the third category of conduct, which is whether or not the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe their safety is threatened. The first analysis that a court would need to struggle with is the way in which that particular accused is seeking to control those forms of expression. Could that reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe their safety is threatened?
In addition to that, the intent element or the mental element would also require proof. That could be inferred from multiple examples of prohibited conduct, including, for example, if the accused engaged in violent conduct, sexually coercive conduct or some conduct from the third category, which is any conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe their safety is threatened.
These are just examples of different ways, as we've seen in the literature and the research, that coercive controllers have sought to control their victims. This has to be read in the context of the overall offence, and you have to remember that the legal test will require proof. It's an objective one, so it's based on what a reasonable person would think in that particular context. Scotland, New South Wales and Queensland also ask for that analysis.