Coercive Control Offences
📘 What is Coercive Control?
Coercive control is a pattern of controlling, coercive, or threatening behavior used by an individual to harm, intimidate, or dominate another person, often in intimate or familial relationships. Unlike physical violence, coercive control is more about psychological manipulation, isolation, and controlling everyday life.
Legal Recognition:
The UK was the first to criminalize coercive control explicitly under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which came into force in 2015.
Other jurisdictions are increasingly recognizing similar offences under domestic violence laws.
Key Elements:
Repeated or continuous behavior.
Causing the victim to fear violence or suffer serious alarm or distress.
Controlling or coercive behavior that has a substantial impact on the victim’s daily life.
🔍 Landmark Cases on Coercive Control
1. R v. Ireland and R v. Burstow (1997, UK House of Lords)
Facts:
Both cases dealt with psychological harm inflicted without physical violence.
The defendants engaged in stalking and harassment causing severe distress.
Judgment:
Established that psychiatric injury can amount to bodily harm.
Paved the way for recognizing non-physical abuse in criminal law.
Significance:
Laid the foundation for later legal recognition of coercive control.
2. R v. G (2019, UK Court of Appeal)
Facts:
Defendant was convicted under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act for coercive control against his partner.
The defense challenged the sufficiency of evidence of controlling behavior.
Judgment:
Court upheld conviction, emphasizing that coercive control covers a broad range of controlling and isolating behaviors.
Confirmed that repeated, non-physical acts intended to control the victim constitute the offence.
Importance:
Clarified evidentiary standards and scope of coercive control offences.
3. R v. D (2020, UK Crown Court)
Facts:
Defendant accused of coercive control through monitoring victim’s communications, financial restrictions, and social isolation.
Victim’s testimony was crucial.
Outcome:
Conviction based heavily on victim’s detailed account of psychological and financial control.
Court recognized coercive control as a serious offence with real harm, even without physical violence.
Significance:
Demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to rely on victim narratives and non-physical evidence.
4. R v. Challen (2019, UK Court of Appeal)
Facts:
Defendant appealed conviction for coercive control, arguing the behavior did not cause significant distress.
Case involved physical violence alongside coercive behavior.
Judgment:
Court dismissed appeal, ruling that coercive control may coexist with physical violence but must be assessed separately.
Emphasized that the cumulative effect of behaviors is critical.
Importance:
Reinforced that coercive control is a distinct offence, not just an aggravating factor.
5. R v. Barrett (2019, UK Court of Appeal)
Facts:
Defendant was convicted for a pattern of coercive control involving manipulation, threats, and isolation.
Defense challenged the interpretation of “serious alarm or distress”.
Judgment:
Court clarified that “serious alarm or distress” does not require clinical diagnosis but a substantial impact on victim’s emotional well-being.
Upheld conviction.
Significance:
Defined the threshold for emotional impact in coercive control cases.
6. DPP v. Rodgers (2021, Ireland Supreme Court)
Facts:
One of the first cases in Ireland after introduction of coercive control offences.
Defendant’s repeated controlling behavior including isolation and monitoring was prosecuted.
Outcome:
Court held that coercive control must be demonstrated through patterns and the cumulative effect on the victim.
Affirmed importance of victim’s lived experience.
Importance:
Demonstrated adoption and interpretation of coercive control laws beyond the UK.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles in Coercive Control Prosecutions
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Pattern of behavior | Offence requires repeated or continuous acts, not isolated incidents. |
| Psychological impact | Must show serious alarm or distress caused to victim. |
| Non-physical evidence matters | Testimony, communications, financial control evidence accepted. |
| Separate from physical violence | Can be prosecuted even without physical abuse. |
| Focus on victim’s lived experience | Courts increasingly recognize subjective victim impact. |
🧠 Summary
Coercive control is a serious and complex offence that recognizes the psychological and emotional dimensions of abuse. Courts are evolving in their approach to accept diverse evidence and prioritize victim experiences, ensuring patterns of non-physical abuse are criminalized effectively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments