In 2015 an offence of ‘controlling or coercive behaviour’ was introduced under the Serious Crime Act, criminalising for the first time the non-physical abuse which so often occurs in the domestic context. This new offence implicitly recognises the psychological and emotional harm which can result from an ongoing pattern of behaviour, and the need to consider the controlling or coercive nature of this behaviour in the context of the power dynamics of the relationship in question. Unique evidential difficulties are raised by this offence, in part because of the ways in which gendered expectations can disguise the controlling and coercive nature of certain behaviours. At the same time, to increase the number of prosecutions for domestic violence offences, including under the new offence, acknowledgement of the ongoing trauma often experienced by victims, and the ways in which this may hinder their ability to safely and effectively participate in the criminal justice process, is required. We will outline recommendations to enable this participation, whilst also asserting the need for creative prosecution methods which allow these type of cases to be prosecuted without being solely reliant upon the victim’s oral testimony in court.
This article will reflect on the adoption of s. 76 Serious Crime Act 2015 which criminalises coercive or controlling behaviour in an intimate or family relationship and considers an argument for aligning partial defences to murder with it. It takes inspiration from the case of Sally Challen, granted leave to appeal her murder conviction at the Court of Appeal on 1st March 2018. Leave was granted after her lawyers successfully persuaded the court that the introduction of s. 76 Serious Crime Act 2015 amounted to fresh evidence in her defence that was unavailable at the time of her trial in 2011. Lady Justice Rafferty stated that, “It should be plainly understood that the application made today is but one step in what, it is hoped by counsel, those who instruct her and many others concerned in this case, will be a full detailed exploration of the position, based on scholarship, learning and clinical expertise, which should prevail now… A jury, it is argued, should, with the benefit of that learning, be enabled to reach a clear settled conclusion on the basis of an understanding which, it is said, was not available to the jury in 2011.” The arguments at her appeal will seek to reduce her murder conviction to manslaughter, providing an opportunity for this article to explore the complexities of aligning the partial defences to murder with the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.