Can a Snapchat, Message, Tag or DM Breach an Order?

“But they messaged my child first.” This is one of the most common problems that can arise when an intervention order involves teenagers.

A young person is told not to contact somebody, then the other person sends them a Snapchat, or messages them on Instagram, or adds them to a group chat, or approaches them at school and says, “it’s fine, you can talk to me.”

Your child responds.

The problem is that the intervention order may still apply.

Who is bound by the intervention order?

An intervention order generally imposes conditions upon the respondent.

If an order prohibits your child from contacting the protected person, the fact that the protected person contacts them first does not automatically give your child permission to respond.

The protected person cannot necessarily authorise conduct prohibited by a Court order.

The order was made by the Court, not by the protected person.

That distinction needs to be explained very clearly to young respondents.

Contact doesn’t just mean making a phone call

Modern intervention order proceedings involving teenagers frequently involve Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, Messenger, WhatsApp, group chats, gaming platforms and anonymous accounts.

Depending upon its terms, an intervention order may prohibit a respondent from:

• contacting the protected person
• communicating electronically
• publishing material about them
• approaching particular places
• getting another person to do something on their behalf

The precise wording of the actual order matters and that is why parents should read it themselves rather than relying upon a teenager’s summary.

What about group chats?

Group chats can create particular problems as teenage friendship groups overlap.

A young person may find themselves in an existing group containing the protected person even though they did not create the group or invite that person.

The correct response will depend upon the actual conditions of the order.

What matters is that the young respondent does not simply assume, “I didn’t message them directly, so it doesn’t count.”

If there is uncertainty about what the order permits, get advice.

What if a friend passes on a message?

An order can potentially prohibit a respondent from getting another person to contact the protected person on their behalf.

Asking a friend to “just tell her I’m sorry” may not be the harmless workaround a teenager assumes it is.

Messages sent through friends can constitute conduct capable of creating serious problems.

What about posting rather than messaging?

Depending upon the conditions, online publication may also be prohibited.

A teenager therefore needs to understand not only whether they can directly message someone but also what they are permitted to post online.

The fact that a post does not tag or directly name another child does not mean parents should automatically assume it is permitted.

The starting point is always the actual wording of the order.

Preserve the whole conversation

Social-media evidence can also be critical when the allegations themselves are disputed.

Do not preserve only the three screenshots that make your child look good, rather, keep the complete conversation where possible.

In disputed cases, lawyers may need to examine full message threads, school records, CCTV, witnesses, police material and other social-media evidence to understand the chronology and context.

Therefore, selected screenshots do not always tell the complete story.

“My child didn’t understand” is precisely why intervention orders involving young people need to be explained differently.

Terms such as “directly or indirectly”, “publish on the internet” and “cause another person to contact” may have legal meaning that a teenager does not intuitively appreciate.

Before leaving court, a young person should understand in practical terms who they cannot contact, whether they can respond if contacted, what they can post, whether friends can pass messages, what happens at school and what they should do following an unexpected encounter.

Why getting it right matters

An intervention order itself is a civil order, breaching it is different.

A breach can result in criminal charges.

Depending upon the conditions of the order, breaches can include sending messages, approaching the protected person, attending a prohibited address, posting about them online or asking a friend to make contact.

That is why social-media compliance should be treated seriously from the moment an order is made.

At Emma Turnbull Lawyers, we represent young people and families in intervention order proceedings and related criminal cases throughout Victoria.

If your child does not understand what an order permits them to do online, get advice before they press send.

Emma Turnbull Lawyers – Specialist Criminal Defence & Intervention Order Lawyers

Melbourne | Appearing throughout Victoria

This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Intervention order and criminal proceedings depend upon the individual circumstances of each case.

Book your consultation today.