Mia JonesOn 11 September 2026, Justice Natalie Adams sentenced Daniel Billings to 28 years in prison at the Orange Supreme Court for the murder of childcare worker Molly Ticehurst — with a non-parole period of 20 years. Billings will not be eligible for parole until 19 April 2044. He was out on bail for domestic violence offences against Molly when he broke into her Forbes home through a bedroom window just before 11:30pm on 21 April 2024, stabbing the 28-year-old multiple times, including to the face and neck. Today's sentence closes the criminal chapter of a case that has permanently altered how New South Wales protects domestic violence victims — and what legal tools now exist for anyone facing a similar threat.
A Case That Exposed the Limits of the AVO
Molly Ticehurst had taken the steps the legal system asks of domestic violence victims. She had an Apprehended Violence Order against Daniel Billings. He had bail conditions that were supposed to keep him away from her. She had reported his violence. And yet, six months of documented coercive control and escalating abuse preceded her death — and the system, as it stood in April 2024, was not enough to stop it.
An Apprehended Violence Order — an AVO — is a court order prohibiting a person from approaching, contacting, or threatening the protected person. Breaching an AVO is a criminal offence under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), carrying up to 2 years imprisonment and/or a $5,500 fine for a first offence. But as the Ticehurst case made undeniable, a protective order is only as effective as the system that enforces it.
Billings was simultaneously subject to bail conditions for earlier domestic violence offences against Molly. Under the bail regime in force in April 2024, however, the burden fell on prosecutors to demonstrate why he should be detained — not on Billings to demonstrate why he should be free. For serious domestic violence accused, that critical protection did not yet exist. Molly's death changed that.
The Bail Reforms That Bear Her Name
The Bail and Other Legislation Amendment (Domestic Violence) Bill 2024 — now commonly called Molly's Law — passed through the NSW Parliament within months of Molly Ticehurst's murder. It introduced a structural shift in how the bail system treats accused domestic violence perpetrators.
The centrepiece of the reform is a reversal of the bail burden for serious domestic violence offences. Under Section 16B of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), certain categories of accused — including those charged with terrorism or serious organised crime — already faced a "show cause" requirement: they had to actively demonstrate to a court why their detention was not justified, rather than letting the state shoulder the burden of proving they were dangerous. Molly's Law extended this test to serious domestic violence offences and to the new coercive control offence.
The practical effect is significant. A person charged with a serious domestic violence offence in 2026 cannot simply apply for bail and wait for prosecutors to object. They must show cause. If a court does grant bail, prosecutors can apply for an immediate "stay" — a mechanism that keeps the accused in custody while a higher court reconsiders the bail decision. This two-stage check, designed to prevent exactly the kind of situation that led to Molly's death, did not exist before 2024.
Molly's family also advocated publicly for GPS ankle-monitoring of accused DV perpetrators as a condition of bail. NSW now includes ankle bracelet programs in its suite of available bail conditions for serious domestic violence cases.
Coercive Control: A Criminal Pattern, Not Just Individual Acts
Alongside the bail reforms, NSW made a second fundamental change. From 1 July 2024, coercive control became a standalone criminal offence under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), as amended. The maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment.
The offence captures repeated patterns of abusive behaviour — physical or non-physical — directed at a current or former intimate partner with the intention of coercing or controlling them. This includes financial abuse, surveillance, isolation from family and friends, monitoring of movements, and threats. Crucially, no individual act needs to constitute a separate offence; it is the sustained pattern of control that is now criminalised.
Before July 2024, police and prosecutors could charge perpetrators with specific incidents — assault, stalking, intimidation — but the pattern of control itself was not a crime. Cases involving months of escalating coercive behaviour before a violent event were difficult to prosecute as a whole. Now, the pattern itself is chargeable, and a coercive control charge triggers the same "show cause" bail requirements as a serious domestic violence offence.
For the full legal definition, reporting pathways, and support services, the NSW Government's coercive control legislation page provides an authoritative overview for victims, families, and legal practitioners.
What These Laws Mean in a Real Situation
Consider a specific scenario that illustrates how the changed legal framework works in practice.
A woman in Sydney's western suburbs has been with her partner for two and a half years. Over the past 18 months, he has progressively restricted her access to their joint bank account — she must ask before withdrawing more than $200. He has insisted on a tracking app on her phone. He has escalated verbal abuse to shoving and twice threatened her with a closed fist. She has not yet reported to police, believing the behaviour is "not bad enough."
Under the pre-2024 framework, without a reported incident of physical violence meeting the assault threshold, her legal options were limited. In 2026, the picture is different.
The sustained pattern she describes — financial control, surveillance, isolation, threats — is now directly chargeable as coercive control under NSW law. If she contacts police today and officers establish that a sustained controlling pattern exists, her partner can be charged with that offence. As coercive control is a "serious domestic violence offence" for bail purposes, he must show cause why he should not be held in custody if charged. If he is released on bail and then sends her a single text message in breach of an AVO condition, that breach is an independent criminal charge with a mandatory court appearance.
A second AVO breach carries a minimum 28-day custodial sentence. A coercive control conviction carries up to 7 years. The financial control she describes — restricting access to money she is legally entitled to — can also underpin an urgent family law application for access to joint funds. The legal architecture available to her in September 2026 is fundamentally stronger than what existed when Molly Ticehurst died in April 2024.
The Report Molly's Family Is Still Waiting For
At the sentencing hearing, Molly Ticehurst's mother publicly called for the release of a NSW Government report into the systemic failures in how Billings' bail was managed. The report — completed but not publicly released as of the sentencing date — is expected to identify specific procedural breakdowns: inadequate risk assessments, gaps in information sharing between police, courts, and bail authorities.
If published, those findings could shape further legislative amendments in 2026 and 2027, particularly around how risk assessments are conducted and how information is shared across agencies when a victim has reported multiple incidents.
Getting Legal Advice When You Need It Most
Molly's Law and the coercive control legislation have changed the legal terrain in NSW. But navigating AVOs, bail hearings, coercive control charges, and the intersection with family law proceedings — parenting orders, property settlements, emergency injunctions — requires specialist advice.
A domestic violence lawyer can help you apply for an AVO urgently and without the other party being present (an ex-parte order), oppose a perpetrator's bail application, document a pattern of coercive behaviour in a way that supports a criminal charge, and coordinate with police and the Director of Public Prosecutions on existing or planned prosecutions.
ExpertZoom connects you directly with accredited legal professionals who specialise in domestic and family violence matters across New South Wales and nationally — without the wait times of Legal Aid and with the privacy of a direct expert consultation.
This article contains general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in immediate danger, call Triple Zero (000). For the National Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Counselling Service, call 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732).
format_used: News brief produced: 1 (out of max 3) early_stop_reason: hard cap reached (1/1 topic for AU)
