The Cost of Human Suffering

The Cost of Human Suffering

Institutional Fragmentation and Systemic Failure in the United Kingdom’s Response to Domestic Abuse

Author: Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Policy Paper | 2026

Abstract

Domestic abuse is widely recognised as one of the most significant social harms in the United Kingdom. Despite legislative progress, particularly through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, survivors continue to encounter systemic failures across the institutions responsible for their protection.

This paper argues that domestic abuse in the UK is not solely a criminal justice issue but a multi-institutional governance problem involving fragmented responses across policing, healthcare, housing, social services, and the courts.

Particular attention is given to:

  • coercive control

  • financial abuse

  • litigation abuse in family courts

  • trauma and PTSD

  • the relationship between domestic abuse and suicide.

Through examination of legal precedents, institutional structures, and survivor experiences, this paper identifies structural weaknesses within the safeguarding framework.

The paper concludes with policy recommendations aimed at creating integrated safeguarding systems, trauma-informed justice processes, and stronger accountability mechanisms for financial and legal abuse.

1. Introduction

Domestic abuse is increasingly recognised as a systemic societal challenge rather than a private family matter. It encompasses physical violence, psychological manipulation, coercive control, financial exploitation, and post-separation harassment.

The UK government has taken steps to address these issues through legislation and public policy. However, survivors frequently report that the systems intended to protect them often fail to operate cohesively.

A recurring problem is institutional fragmentation. Domestic abuse cases may involve numerous agencies, including:

  • police services

  • the NHS

  • housing authorities

  • child and adult social services

  • family courts

  • financial regulatory institutions.

These bodies operate under different mandates, legal frameworks, and information systems. As a result, survivors are frequently required to navigate multiple bureaucratic processes simultaneously while experiencing severe psychological distress.

In extreme circumstances, institutional failures can contribute to tragic outcomes, including homelessness, prolonged trauma, and suicide.

This paper therefore examines domestic abuse through a systemic policy lens, focusing on how institutional disconnect can exacerbate harm.

2. Domestic Abuse as a Public Health and Governance Issue

Domestic abuse is often framed within criminal justice discourse, but it is equally a public health and governance challenge.

The psychological and physiological impacts of domestic abuse are extensive. Survivors frequently experience:

  • depression

  • anxiety disorders

  • complex trauma

  • post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

  • long-term health complications.

The NHS has increasingly recognised domestic abuse as a significant determinant of health outcomes.

Yet the healthcare system is often disconnected from the legal and safeguarding frameworks that address abuse.

For example:

  • a GP may document trauma symptoms

  • police may record incidents of abuse

  • social services may conduct safeguarding assessments.

However, these pieces of information may never be fully integrated into a coherent safeguarding response.

This fragmentation creates opportunities for perpetrators to manipulate institutional gaps.

3. The Legal Recognition of Coercive Control

Historically, domestic abuse laws focused primarily on physical violence.

However, research has demonstrated that coercive control can be equally destructive.

Coercive control involves patterns of behaviour designed to dominate and psychologically destabilise victims.

Examples include:

  • emotional manipulation

  • social isolation

  • financial control

  • threats and intimidation

  • surveillance and monitoring.

Legal recognition of coercive control has evolved gradually.

A pivotal moment occurred with the case of Sally Challen, whose conviction was reconsidered after evidence of long-term coercive control was presented.

The case raised national awareness about the psychological effects of domestic abuse and contributed to broader recognition of coercive control within UK law.

Nevertheless, legal institutions still struggle to interpret and evaluate psychological abuse within adversarial court settings.

4. Domestic Abuse and Suicide

One of the most tragic outcomes associated with domestic abuse is suicide.

Research indicates that survivors of domestic abuse experience significantly elevated rates of suicidal ideation and self-harm.

Domestic abuse can create conditions of psychological entrapment characterised by:

  • prolonged fear

  • humiliation

  • loss of autonomy

  • financial dependency.

These conditions may produce a profound sense of hopelessness.

Domestic abuse organisations in the UK have repeatedly highlighted the link between abuse and suicide.

However, official records often fail to classify suicides as domestic-abuse-related deaths.

This creates a gap in national statistics and obscures the scale of the problem.

Recent prosecutions have begun to recognise that psychological abuse may contribute directly to suicide, though such cases remain relatively rare.

Greater recognition of this relationship could strengthen safeguarding interventions.

5. Trauma and the Legal System

Trauma presents unique challenges within legal proceedings.

The adversarial structure of court systems often requires victims to recount traumatic experiences in highly stressful environments.

Survivors experiencing PTSD may exhibit symptoms such as:

  • memory fragmentation

  • emotional dysregulation

  • dissociation

  • heightened stress responses.

These behaviours may be misinterpreted within courtrooms as unreliability or instability.

Consequently, trauma-informed legal practices are increasingly being discussed as a necessary reform within justice systems.

Such practices include:

  • specialised training for judges and lawyers

  • adjustments to courtroom procedures

  • greater recognition of psychological injury.

Without these reforms, legal processes risk re-traumatising survivors rather than delivering justice.

6. Financial Abuse and Post-Separation Litigation

Financial abuse is a central component of coercive control.

Perpetrators may restrict access to financial resources during relationships and continue exerting control through legal processes after separation.

Examples of post-separation financial abuse include:

  • concealing assets

  • manipulating corporate structures

  • delaying legal proceedings

  • escalating litigation costs.

These tactics may create severe financial pressure on survivors, particularly when perpetrators possess greater financial resources.

Family courts rely heavily on financial disclosure mechanisms, yet these processes depend largely on the honesty of the parties involved.

In complex financial cases, particularly those involving corporate structures, asset concealment can be difficult to detect.

Strengthening financial transparency and investigative capacity within family courts could therefore be an important policy reform.

7. Institutional Fragmentation in Safeguarding Systems

One of the most consistent themes emerging from domestic abuse research is the lack of coordination between institutions.

Each agency operates under its own legal mandate and administrative structure.

For example:

Police responses focus on criminal incidents.

Healthcare providers focus on patient treatment.

Housing authorities focus on accommodation eligibility.

Social services focus on safeguarding children.

Courts focus on legal adjudication.

While these roles are individually important, the absence of integrated systems means that critical information may remain siloed.

This fragmentation creates challenges for survivors attempting to access support.

It also creates opportunities for perpetrators to exploit institutional gaps.

8. Cultural and Structural Barriers within the Legal System

Legal systems are shaped not only by laws but also by professional cultures.

In adversarial legal environments, success is often measured by the ability to secure favourable outcomes for clients.

While advocacy is a fundamental part of legal practice, this structure may sometimes conflict with safeguarding considerations in domestic abuse cases.

There have been ongoing debates about the need for greater ethical oversight and trauma awareness within family law practice.

Professional regulatory bodies such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board already maintain ethical standards for legal practitioners.

However, evolving understanding of coercive control and litigation abuse may require continued examination of professional guidelines.

9. Policy Recommendations

Addressing domestic abuse effectively requires systemic reform rather than isolated interventions.

Key policy recommendations include:

1. Integrated Safeguarding Data Systems

Develop secure information-sharing platforms enabling collaboration between police, healthcare providers, courts, and social services.

2. Trauma-Informed Justice Systems

Implement mandatory trauma-informed training for judges, barristers, and solicitors involved in family and domestic abuse cases.

3. Strengthened Financial Transparency

Enhance investigative powers within family courts to examine complex financial structures and detect asset concealment.

4. Recognition of Suicide Risk

Domestic abuse risk assessments should incorporate mental health and suicide risk indicators.

5. Survivor-Centred Safeguarding Framework

Adopt a coordinated multi-agency model prioritising survivor safety, dignity, and recovery.

10. Conclusion

Domestic abuse represents a profound human rights challenge in modern societies.

While legislative reforms have improved legal recognition of abuse, institutional fragmentation continues to undermine safeguarding efforts.

Preventing further harm requires structural reform across policing, healthcare, housing services, and the legal system.

Only through integrated institutional responses, trauma-informed practices, and stronger accountability mechanisms can the UK ensure that survivors receive the protection and justice they deserve.

Previous
Previous

Detecting Coercive Control in Family CourtWhy Legal Systems Still Struggle to Identify Pattern-Based Abuse

Next
Next

The Governance Gap in Safeguarding Systems