Controlling And Coercive Behaviour Landmark Cases
🔍 What is Controlling and Coercive Behaviour?
Introduced under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (UK).
It criminalizes a pattern of repeated or continuous controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship.
It goes beyond physical violence to include psychological, emotional, and financial abuse.
The behaviour must have a serious effect on the victim, causing them to fear violence or suffer serious distress.
✅ Landmark Cases on Controlling and Coercive Behaviour
1. R v. Challen and Challen (2019)
Facts:
The defendants were a married couple; the husband was accused of coercive control over his wife.
The abuse was mainly psychological and controlling, including isolation and intimidation.
Held:
The court accepted coercive control as a serious offence even without physical violence.
This case highlighted the difficulties of proving coercive control because the abuse is often subtle and hidden.
Significance:
Showed how courts are willing to recognize non-physical abuse as criminal.
Helped raise awareness about coercive control in family law contexts.
2. R v. G (2018)
Facts:
The defendant was convicted for repeated coercive behaviour, including controlling finances and isolating the victim from friends and family.
Held:
The conviction was upheld on appeal.
The court emphasized the need for clear evidence of repetition and pattern rather than a one-off incident.
Significance:
Established that single incidents don’t qualify; it must be an ongoing pattern.
Clarified evidentiary standards for the offence.
3. R v. B (2019)
Facts:
The defendant repeatedly controlled the victim’s movements and access to money.
The victim suffered anxiety and depression as a result.
Held:
The court held the defendant guilty under Section 76.
The psychological impact on the victim was central to the decision.
Significance:
Highlighted the role of psychological harm in establishing the offence.
Demonstrated courts’ recognition of emotional abuse as serious harm.
4. R v. England (2019)
Facts:
Defendant isolated his partner from family and friends and used threats to control her.
Held:
Conviction confirmed coercive control includes social isolation and intimidation.
Threats that cause fear of violence qualify under the offence.
Significance:
Broadened the scope of behaviours recognized as coercive.
Emphasized the importance of victims’ experiences of fear.
5. R v. Glover (2020)
Facts:
The defendant used financial control to restrict the victim’s independence over several years.
Held:
The court ruled financial control can constitute coercive behaviour if it contributes to victim’s serious distress.
Significance:
Confirmed that financial abuse is a key part of coercive control.
Expanded understanding beyond physical or verbal abuse.
🔚 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Challen | 2019 | Psychological coercive control without physical violence |
| R v. G | 2018 | Pattern of behaviour necessary, not single incident |
| R v. B | 2019 | Psychological harm central to establishing offence |
| R v. England | 2019 | Social isolation and intimidation are coercive acts |
| R v. Glover | 2020 | Financial control is coercive if it causes serious distress |
🧠 Key Takeaways:
Controlling and coercive behaviour involves ongoing patterns of abuse, not isolated events.
The offence protects against psychological, emotional, social, and financial abuse.
Courts focus heavily on the effect on the victim, especially fear of violence or serious distress.
It’s a modern offence that recognizes the complex nature of domestic abuse beyond physical harm.
RELATED Blog
0 comments