Controlling Or Coercive Behaviour: Case Study

In the present case there are two possible prosecutions to discuss. Jerome may be guilty of ‘controlling or coercive behaviour’ under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. While Talia may be guilty of assault under section 20 or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861.
The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour was created in 2015 after increasing political concern to strengthen the criminal law’s response to domestic abuse. In a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, it was reported that domestic abuse makes up around eight percent of all crime; one third of assaults with injury and it was estimated that there is an emergency call regarding domestic abuse almost every 30 seconds. Before the

The first of these conditions is that Jerome must ‘repeatedly or continuously’ behave in a ‘controlling or coercive’ way towards Talia. The primary problem that the prosecution will face is determining the meaning of controlling and coercive behaviour: there is no case law in this area yet and therefore there is no precedent to follow. However, the Home Office has created a Statutory Guidance Framework for domestic abuse cases. This guide describes controlling behaviour as actions ‘designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent’ and coercive behaviour as ‘acts of assault; threats, humiliation and intimidation’ . In both cases the behaviour is conducted ‘to exert power, control or coercion over another.’ The guidance goes on to list a number of typical types of behaviour that would be considered to fall in this category. Some of Jerome’s actions can be found on this list for example: ‘financial abuse including control of finances’ and ‘taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go’ . These are both types of behaviour Jerome was exhibiting before he snapped at Talia, for supposedly using drugs. From then on the controlling and coercive behaviour escalates in severity. The facts also show that Jerome’s behaviour is continuous and happens over a sustained period of

Therefore, if the case presented above is raised, the defence may be used by Jerome. The defence available can be found in subsection eight of the act: it is a defence for the defendant to show that they believed their actions were in the victim’s best interests, and the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable. The facts of the case state that Jerome has explained to Talia that his actions are for her and Alicia’s own good. Although this belief may be an honest and rationale belief it cannot be argued that in any way his behaviour was reasonable in the given circumstances. Under the act it will be assumed Jerome has shown the facts in subsection (8) if there is sufficient evidence that raises an issue with respect to the facts and the ‘contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt’ Therefore, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defence should not stand. However, as the statutory framework states, this defence is not just a matter of Jerome believing he was acting in Talia’s best interest. ‘There is an objective element…that allows a...jury to reject the defence where they find that the behaviour of the defendant was not reasonable.’ Given this discretional element and the facts of the case the defence would be a weak one and should not affect the prosecution’s