A decade ago, a new law came into force that changed the way the criminal justice system seeks to legislate aspects of interpersonal relationships.
Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 introduced the offence of ‘controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship’. This criminalised persistent abuse which could, if ignored, result in violence and/or psychological trauma.
There have been updates to this law since then, most notably in 2023 when controlling or coercive behaviour was extended to include post-separation abuse.
But the essence of the law remains the same now as it was 10 years ago.
To qualify as controlling or coercive, behaviour must be repeated or continuous. It must also have had a serious effect on the complainant, and the accused person must have known – or ought to have known – this.
Within these parameters, there are two types of controlling or coercive behaviour:
1. The ‘violence’ offence: when a person exhibits behaviour which causes another person to fear, on at least two occasions, that they will be subjected to violence.
2. The ‘serious distress’ offence: when a person exhibits behaviour which causes another person to experience, on at least two occasions, serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities.
Isolating another, depriving them of basic needs, monitoring them, controlling their life, degrading them, threatening with violence or sexual harm, controlling finances, and withholding passports are examples of what may amount to this offence.
Prosecution problems
My experience of these cases is that they are generally harder for the prosecution to prove than I suspect the law’s original drafters envisioned. This is especially the case for the second ‘serious distress’ type of offence.
A common problem is an allegation made in the final throes of a toxic relationship. A suspect may argue that both parties acted equally badly, and that there was no substantial adverse effect on the other’s usual day-to-day activities (a key element of the ‘serious distress’ offence).
This common scenario can prove challenging for the police to investigate properly. While a charge can only cover the 10 years since the law came into force, the alleged behaviour may have a history which goes back further.
The police and Crown Prosecution Service often do not have sufficient resources to consider all this evidence properly. I have seen trial dates pushed back due to the prosecution’s failure to obtain and review all reasonable lines of enquiry, including digital and counselling records.
Then there are problems related to the fact that prosecutions often run parallel to family proceedings.
It can be the case that children of a suspect are prevented from spending time with them while awaiting trial. When delays run into years, this estrangement can cause irreparable damage. Delays can result in a case coming to court long after the couple has split up and otherwise moved on with their lives.
Complainants involved in parallel civil proceedings risk having their allegations undermined by accusations of ‘weaponising’ the criminal law to advance their case in the family court.
CPS performance
At the end of December, the CPS issued a press release, Rise in coercive control charges marks a decade of progress.
While this showed the number of controlling or coercive behaviour charges increased from 198 in 2016 to 4,995 in 2024, it did not include any data about the proportion of complaints which result in charge, nor the proportion of charges which result in conviction.
Some of this information is available elsewhere. The Office for National Statistics reports that during the financial year to March 2025, the police received 49,557 reports of controlling or coercive behaviour, suggesting about 10% of complaints result in charge (tinyurl.com/3d9z3fdy).
Conviction rate data is more elusive. My expectation is that it is low.
Alternatives to controlling or coercive behaviour
When announcing its intention to create the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in 2014, the government justified the new law by pointing to a public consultation in which ‘eighty-five per cent of respondents agreed that the law does not currently provide sufficient protection to victims’.
Eight years later, this legal context shifted significantly when the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 increased the time limit for assault and battery charges, from six months to two years.
At a stroke, this made it much easier to prosecute long-term, violent domestic abusers. It also significantly changed the rationale for the first ‘violent’ type of controlling or coercive behaviour.
My experience of these cases is that they can be extremely complicated, in part because they involve claims and counter-claims made in the context of troubled relationships. On top of this, hurdles imposed by the legislation mean these cases can take a long time to properly investigate and reach trial: something that has wide-ranging negative consequences.
I wonder whether a civil order, such as a non-molestation order or Domestic Violence Protection Order, may be a swifter way of enabling some victims of this behaviour to get the protection they need while allowing them to move on with their lives.
The government may also consider extending the current six-month time limit for domestic stalking offences under section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Doing this would remove the hurdle of having to prove both ‘serious distress’ and a ‘substantial adverse effect on a person’s day-to-day activities’.
Jenny Wiltshire is head of serious and general crime at Hickman & Rose, London
No comments yet