Luke Stanley Jay, 32, of Moruya Heads, appeared in Batemans Bay Local Court on Monday, April 8, charged with two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of common assault.

The charges related to incidents between May and October last year in the couple's Tomakin home.

Defence solicitor Adam Sumbak unsuccessfully sought to have his client avoid a criminal conviction and have the matter discharged under Section 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, on the condition Jay undertake rehabilitation.

However, the Crown said the offences were serious and repeated, children had been witnesses, and Jay had failed to deal with his longstanding alcohol abuse.

Mr Sumbak argued Jay suffered serious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of his decade in the NSW Police Force, including in Sydney.

He said Jay had "started life with something of a flourish", joining the Canberra Raiders at the age of 17, then the police force three years later.

He said that decision was "hasty" and "naive" and Jay was "exposed to significant traumatising events", including having to sit with a mutilated body on train tracks and had witnessed, on closed circuit TV, a person jump from a building.

"His life began to fall apart," Mr Sumbak told the court.

"He began drinking heavily."

He had also attempted to take his own life and the "man who first entered the police force" was not the man who faced the court on April 8.

"He can barely get out of bed," Mr Sumbak told the court.

The offences were "not the actions of a man who has his mental faculties in order".

"He did 10 years in the public service; as a result of that public service, he is suffering. The trauma of PTSD and alcohol dependency go hand-in-hand."

Mr Sumbak conceded two offences were "despicable", but said psychiatric reports supported rehabilitation.

Under Section 32, he sought to have Jay discharged into the care of his GP, on the condition he comply with drug and alcohol programs and intense psychiatric intervention.

The crown disagreed.

Ms Stueckradt, for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, was not confident Jay's "longstanding alcohol abuse issues" would be quickly resolved and he had a pattern of relapsing.

"There has been treatment for a significant period of time with psychological and psychiatric care and residential treatment that focused on PTSD and alcohol abuse," she told the court.

"He still appears to be drinking. He has been counselled since 2016 to abstain from alcohol with minimal effect."

She said "disregard for advice from professionals" was concerning.

The court heard Jay had not undergone extended residential rehabilitation, but had spent some periods in treatment.

"Offending behaviour has been taking place quite close to discharge and while he was under the influence of alcohol," Ms Stueckradt said.

She said an incident in May 2018 was especially serious, even though the victim was not badly hurt.

"He targeted a vulnerable person," she said, citing "the vulnerable position the victim was placed in, being on the ground, with the defendants hand around her neck, affecting breathing."

She said a six-month program under Section 32 would have minimal effect.

Mr Douglass said Jay had no criminal convictions, but that the allegations extended over a period of five months "dilutes confidence".

"That first offence could have been a catalyst for great change and personal insight," he said.

"That was not the case."

He pointed to Jay's "loss of control and anger" at a "fairly acute level" and said a six-month program would be inadequate. He denied the Section 32 application given the serious, repeated offences.

Jay had earlier pleaded guilty to three counts of assault but a more serious charge of intentionally choking a person with recklessness had been withdrawn.

Mr Sumbak said his client had pleaded guilty early and asked for leniency. He said Jay had been "of good character and will be of good character in the future" and he had good references.

The crown argued a conviction must be imposed due to the seriousness of the offences and there was "an overwhelming need" for a sentence that would act as a personal and general deterrent. 

Mr Douglass imposed an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order with strict conditions and warned breaching them could result in jail and $5,500 in fines.

"At least some of your actions were witnessed by a child," Mr Douglass said.

"There was offending, then more offending, then more offending. The court would be wrong not to record a conviction."

He accepted "your profession has a negative impact" and said other emergency service personnel also suffered.

"I have taken this into consideration," Mr Douglass said.

However, he said a "threshold was crossed" and "I would normally be considering some form of custodial sentence".

In imposing his order, Mr Douglass sought advice from the Community Corrections Office, whose representative requested the court impose a condition of total abstinence from alcohol, a residential rehabilitation program, a program for domestic violence offenders and his psychiatric interventions be strictly monitored.

The officer said Jay must "continue to undertake intervention, (and) a high level of psychiatric and psychological intervention as directed".

Mr Douglass said Jay owed his second chance to his solicitor Mr Sumbak.

"If you breach the orders, it would see you being held in custody," he said.

"I was not puffing my chest out in any way when I said this level of offending warrants jail."