Coercive Control Detection Within Legal Processes
Structural Barriers and Safeguarding Reform
Coercive Control Detection Within Legal Processes
Structural Barriers and Safeguarding Reform
Executive Summary
Coercive control represents one of the most complex and difficult forms of domestic abuse for legal systems to detect. Unlike physical violence, coercive control operates through patterns of psychological domination, intimidation, financial restriction, isolation, and institutional manipulation. These patterns often unfold over extended periods and are designed to erode the autonomy and credibility of the victim.
Although coercive control is criminalised under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, detection within legal proceedings remains inconsistent. Courts, legal representatives, and safeguarding bodies frequently encounter challenges identifying coercive behaviour due to evidentiary limitations, procedural frameworks that focus on isolated incidents, and institutional fragmentation across agencies responsible for safeguarding.
This paper examines the structural factors that contribute to the under-detection of coercive control within legal processes and proposes institutional reforms aimed at strengthening safeguarding outcomes.
Legal Context
The legal recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour in the United Kingdom is primarily established through:
• Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76
• Domestic Abuse Act 2021
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Equality Act 2010
These statutes collectively recognise domestic abuse as encompassing psychological, emotional, and controlling behaviour in addition to physical violence.
Despite this legal recognition, practical detection within legal proceedings often remains limited due to procedural constraints and evidentiary expectations that favour visible or discrete incidents.
Structural Barriers to Detection
Incident-Based Legal Assessment
Legal proceedings frequently assess harm through discrete incidents rather than patterned behaviour. Coercive control, however, manifests through cumulative psychological pressure rather than isolated events.
This mismatch between behavioural pattern and legal evidentiary structure significantly reduces the likelihood of accurate detection.
Documentation Fragmentation
Evidence of coercive control is frequently distributed across multiple agencies, including police, healthcare providers, social services, housing authorities, and legal representatives.
Without systematic continuity of documentation, patterns of abuse may remain invisible within individual institutional records.
Trauma-Affected Testimony
Survivors of coercive control frequently present with trauma responses including memory fragmentation, anxiety, dissociation, and difficulty articulating events in linear chronological order.
Legal processes that rely heavily on consistency of narrative may therefore misinterpret trauma responses as unreliability.
Strategic Institutional Manipulation
Perpetrators of coercive control may attempt to manipulate institutional processes through litigation strategies, financial leverage, reputational influence, or procedural delay.
Where legal systems lack specialised detection frameworks, such manipulation may distort institutional perception of risk.
Policy Recommendations
To strengthen detection of coercive control within legal processes, the following structural reforms should be considered:
• development of pattern-based evidence frameworks
• trauma-informed participation protocols within legal proceedings
• improved inter-agency documentation continuity
• safeguarding oversight mechanisms for complex domestic abuse cases
• professional training on coercive control detection
Conclusion
Legal recognition of coercive control represents an important step in addressing domestic abuse. However, effective safeguarding requires institutional processes capable of identifying patterns of domination that may not appear through isolated events.
Strengthening detection within legal processes therefore requires structural reform that integrates trauma-informed practice, cross-agency documentation continuity, and safeguarding governance oversight.
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
Coercive control remains one of the most difficult forms of domestic abuse for legal systems to detect.
Unlike physical violence, coercive control operates through patterns of psychological domination, financial restriction, intimidation, and strategic manipulation of institutions.
Although the UK criminalised coercive control under the Serious Crime Act 2015, detection within legal processes—particularly family courts, housing disputes, and civil proceedings—remains inconsistent and structurally weak.
This article examines the institutional barriers that prevent effective detection of coercive control within legal systems, and explores why safeguarding frameworks must evolve to address the procedural realities survivors face when navigating complex multi-agency environments.