COERCIVE CONTROL DETECTION WITHIN LEGAL PROCESSES

Structural Barriers, Evidential Limitations, and the Future of Safeguarding Reform

SAFECHAIN™ Research Repository

Author: Samantha Avril-Andreassen FRSA
Research Division: SAFECHAIN™ Policy & Innovation Initiative
Publication Year: 2026

Executive Summary

Coercive control is now widely recognised as one of the most pervasive and harmful forms of domestic abuse. Unlike physical violence, coercive control is characterised by an ongoing pattern of domination designed to subordinate, isolate, intimidate, exploit, and regulate another person's autonomy, freedom, finances, relationships, behaviour, and decision-making.

Although Parliament formally criminalised controlling or coercive behaviour through section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, significant challenges remain in the practical detection, evidential assessment, and institutional recognition of coercive control across legal and safeguarding systems.

The central difficulty is structural.

Modern legal processes remain predominantly organised around the assessment of discrete incidents, individual events, documentary snapshots, and isolated evidential episodes. Coercive control, by contrast, operates through cumulative behavioural patterns that may emerge only when multiple interactions, decisions, communications, financial arrangements, institutional engagements, and safeguarding indicators are viewed collectively.

As a result, legal systems frequently encounter a profound evidential mismatch between the way coercive control operates and the way institutions assess risk.

This paper argues that effective detection requires a transition from incident-based assessment models toward pattern-recognition safeguarding frameworks capable of identifying behavioural continuity across multiple domains of interaction.

Such reform is necessary not only for safeguarding effectiveness but also for compliance with broader obligations arising under domestic abuse legislation, equality law, human rights law, safeguarding duties, and principles of procedural fairness.

Introduction

Domestic abuse policy has undergone significant evolution over the past decade.

The legislative shift away from a narrow focus on physical violence towards recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour represents one of the most important developments in modern safeguarding law.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 further reinforced this position by recognising domestic abuse as encompassing:

• psychological abuse;

• emotional abuse;

• controlling behaviour;

• coercive behaviour;

• economic abuse;

• threatening conduct;

• intimidation;

• technological abuse;

• patterns of domination and dependency.

Yet despite growing legal recognition, many safeguarding environments continue to struggle to identify coercive control in practice.

This challenge is not primarily legislative.

It is institutional.

The problem is not that coercive control lacks legal recognition.

The problem is that many institutional systems remain insufficiently equipped to detect, document, assess, and respond to behavioural patterns that unfold gradually across time, agencies, and procedural environments.

The Legal Framework

Coercive control is supported by an increasingly sophisticated legislative framework.

Key provisions include:

Serious Crime Act 2015 – Section 76

Section 76 established the criminal offence of controlling or coercive behaviour within intimate or family relationships.

The legislation recognises that abuse may arise through repeated conduct designed to:

• isolate an individual;

• restrict autonomy;

• create dependency;

• induce fear;

• regulate daily life;

• undermine independence.

Importantly, the offence recognises patterns rather than isolated acts.

Domestic Abuse Act 2021

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 expanded statutory understanding of abuse and introduced a more comprehensive framework for recognising non-physical forms of harm.

The Act specifically recognises:

• emotional abuse;

• psychological abuse;

• coercive behaviour;

• controlling behaviour;

• economic abuse.

This represented a significant shift away from incident-focused interpretations of domestic abuse.

Human Rights Framework

The detection and prevention of coercive control also engages important rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, including:

• Article 3 (freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment);

• Article 6 (right to a fair hearing);

• Article 8 (respect for private and family life);

• Article 14 (non-discrimination).

Where institutional processes fail to recognise serious patterns of abuse, safeguarding systems risk undermining the practical effectiveness of these protections.

Equality Act 2010

Trauma-related impairments may engage duties under the Equality Act 2010 where survivors experience substantial adverse effects upon participation, communication, concentration, memory, or decision-making.

The Public Sector Equality Duty requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity for protected groups.

This has significant implications for trauma-informed participation within legal proceedings.

The Structural Detection Problem

The Incident-Based Assessment Model

Most legal processes remain fundamentally event-driven.

Investigations, hearings, witness statements, case management procedures, and evidential rules often focus upon:

• specific dates;

• specific incidents;

• specific allegations;

• specific documents.

Coercive control rarely presents itself in this manner.

Instead, it emerges through accumulation.

A single text message may appear benign.

A single financial restriction may appear insignificant.

A single procedural manoeuvre may appear routine.

Only when viewed collectively do these events reveal a pattern of domination.

The legal system therefore faces a methodological problem:

coercive control is pattern-based, while many evidential frameworks remain incident-based.

Documentation Fragmentation

Evidence of coercive control is rarely located within a single institutional file.

Relevant information may exist across:

• police records;

• GP records;

• mental health services;

• housing files;

• social care assessments;

• financial records;

• court documents;

• safeguarding referrals.

Each institution may observe a fragment.

Few observe the whole picture.

This fragmentation creates what SAFECHAIN™ research identifies as evidential discontinuity — a condition whereby patterns of risk remain hidden because relevant information exists across multiple disconnected systems.

Trauma and Evidential Interpretation

Trauma profoundly affects participation.

Research consistently demonstrates that survivors may experience:

• fragmented memory;

• delayed disclosure;

• dissociation;

• anxiety;

• impaired recall;

• difficulty producing linear narratives.

Traditional evidential cultures frequently treat consistency as a proxy for reliability.

Trauma science demonstrates that this assumption is often flawed.

Without trauma-informed assessment frameworks, institutional decision-makers may misinterpret trauma responses as evidence of unreliability rather than indicators of harm.

Institutional Manipulation and Procedural Abuse

Coercive control frequently extends beyond private relationships and into institutional environments.

Perpetrators may seek to exert influence through:

• strategic litigation;

• repeated applications;

• financial attrition;

• disclosure asymmetry;

• procedural complexity;

• intimidation through process;

• exploitation of institutional blind spots.

This phenomenon is increasingly recognised internationally as a form of post-separation abuse.

Yet many procedural systems remain insufficiently equipped to identify abuse enacted through institutional mechanisms.

Why Existing Safeguarding Systems Continue to Miss Patterns

The primary challenge is not the absence of information.

The challenge is the absence of integrated pattern recognition.

Current safeguarding systems often excel at identifying acute incidents.

They remain significantly weaker at identifying cumulative behavioural architectures.

As a result, institutions may repeatedly encounter warning signs without recognising the underlying pattern connecting them.

This creates the illusion that isolated events are unrelated when, in reality, they may form part of a coherent strategy of domination and control.

Policy Reform Recommendations

1. Pattern-Based Evidential Assessment Frameworks

Legal systems should develop methodologies specifically designed to evaluate behavioural continuity rather than relying solely upon incident-by-incident analysis.

Assessment frameworks should be capable of identifying cumulative patterns of coercion across time.

2. Trauma-Informed Participation Standards

Courts and safeguarding bodies should adopt trauma-informed participation frameworks that recognise the impact of trauma on memory, communication, and engagement.

Participation quality should become a safeguarding metric in its own right.

3. Cross-Agency Evidential Continuity

Safeguarding systems require stronger mechanisms for preserving continuity of information between agencies.

Pattern recognition becomes significantly more effective when information is viewed across institutional boundaries rather than within isolated silos.

4. Specialist Professional Training

Training should move beyond awareness-based approaches toward operational detection capability.

Professionals should be equipped to recognise:

• behavioural patterns;

• economic abuse;

• procedural abuse;

• post-separation abuse;

• institutional manipulation.

5. Safeguarding Governance Oversight

Complex domestic abuse cases should benefit from enhanced safeguarding oversight capable of identifying systemic risks that individual agencies may not recognise independently.

Conclusion

The criminalisation of coercive control represented an important legal milestone.

However, legal recognition alone cannot guarantee effective detection.

The central challenge facing modern safeguarding systems is structural.

Coercive control functions as a pattern.

Many institutions continue to assess risk as a collection of isolated incidents.

Until safeguarding frameworks evolve to recognise behavioural continuity, institutional systems will continue to struggle to identify some of the most serious forms of domestic abuse.

The future of safeguarding therefore lies not simply in stronger legislation, but in stronger institutional architecture.

Recognition must be matched by detection.

Detection must be matched by coordination.

And coordination must be matched by systems capable of identifying patterns before harm becomes entrenched.

Only then can safeguarding move beyond reaction and towards meaningful prevention.

Copyright Notice

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.

SAFECHAINN Ltd is a conceptual safeguarding infrastructure and policy framework authored by Samantha Avril-Andreassen. Reproduction or implementation of this framework without permission is prohibited.

Version: SAFECHAIN™ Research Paper Series | RPS-001 | Version 2.0