The Victims and Courts Act 2026, Domestic Abuse Reform & the Future of Safeguarding
What the New Legal Framework Achieves — And What Still Needs to Change
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Founder — SAFECHAIN™
Executive Summary
The passage of the Victims and Courts Act 2026, alongside the continued implementation of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the expansion of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs), represents one of the most significant developments in domestic abuse legislation in recent years.
Taken together, these reforms strengthen legal recognition of domestic abuse, improve protection mechanisms for victims, expand judicial powers in certain circumstances, and reinforce the principle that abuse extends far beyond physical violence.
The reforms acknowledge an important reality:
Domestic abuse is frequently characterised by patterns of coercion, control, intimidation, isolation, manipulation, surveillance, economic restriction, psychological harm, and behavioural domination.
The law has increasingly moved away from viewing domestic abuse solely through the lens of physical violence.
This represents substantial progress.
However, significant structural challenges remain.
Whilst the law is becoming more sophisticated in recognising abuse, institutional systems remain fragmented in how they identify, record, interpret, and respond to it.
SAFECHAIN™ welcomes many aspects of the reforms.
However, safeguarding systems cannot rely upon legal recognition alone.
Protection requires operational implementation.
The next phase of reform must therefore focus on institutional interoperability, participation integrity, safeguarding continuity, and cross-sector accountability.
The Evolution of Domestic Abuse Law
For many years, domestic abuse was predominantly understood through physical assault.
Modern safeguarding practice now recognises that abuse frequently operates through patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 represented a significant shift by formally recognising:
coercive and controlling behaviour;
emotional abuse;
psychological abuse;
economic abuse;
threatening behaviour;
intimidation;
manipulative conduct;
technological abuse;
surveillance and monitoring;
isolation from support networks;
and patterns of non-physical harm.
This shift was essential because many victims experience profound harm without visible injury.
Abuse often manifests through:
control of finances;
restriction of movement;
monitoring of communications;
reputational destruction;
intimidation;
threats;
emotional degradation;
housing insecurity;
legal abuse;
and prolonged psychological domination.
The law now increasingly recognises these realities.
The challenge is ensuring institutions recognise them too.
Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs)
A Significant Step Forward
One of the most important developments arising from recent reforms is the continued implementation of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs).
DAPOs were designed to replace a fragmented landscape of protective orders with a more flexible and comprehensive safeguarding tool.
DAPOs may allow courts to:
prohibit contact;
prohibit attendance at specified locations;
impose exclusion zones;
restrict behaviour;
require participation in specified programmes;
and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
The intention behind DAPOs is clear:
To provide stronger and more adaptable protection for victims.
This represents an important development because domestic abuse rarely follows a simple pattern.
Abusive behaviour evolves.
Protective measures must therefore be capable of evolving too.
What SAFECHAIN™ Supports About DAPOs
SAFECHAIN™ strongly supports:
Greater Flexibility
Domestic abuse does not present identically in every case.
Courts require tools capable of responding to:
surveillance,
stalking,
economic abuse,
harassment,
intimidation,
and technological monitoring.
DAPOs represent movement in this direction.
Stronger Enforcement
Protective orders have historically suffered from inconsistent enforcement.
Victims frequently report that breaches occur repeatedly before meaningful intervention takes place.
Stronger enforcement powers are therefore welcome.
Recognition of Pattern-Based Abuse
One of the most important developments is the growing recognition that domestic abuse is frequently:
cumulative.
The issue is not one isolated incident.
The issue is a sustained pattern of domination, fear, control, and destabilisation.
DAPOs move closer toward recognising that reality.
Where SAFECHAIN™ Believes DAPOs Must Go Further
Whilst DAPOs represent progress, significant gaps remain.
SAFECHAIN™ believes future reform should include:
Automatic Cross-Agency Safeguarding Alerts
A DAPO should not remain confined to a court file.
Relevant safeguarding information should be capable of secure visibility across:
policing,
housing,
healthcare,
safeguarding teams,
and other authorised agencies.
Financial Abuse Safeguarding Triggers
Where economic abuse is identified:
banks,
lenders,
housing providers,
and safeguarding agencies
should be capable of responding through structured safeguarding pathways.
Participation Integrity Reviews
Before a DAPO hearing proceeds, courts should assess:
trauma impact,
participation capacity,
safeguarding barriers,
and vulnerability indicators.
Protection should not depend upon procedural stamina.
Section 56 Judicial Recognition of Domestic Abuse
Why This Matters
One of the most discussed aspects of the recent reforms concerns provisions requiring courts to explicitly identify domestic abuse where it forms part of offending behaviour.
The significance of this should not be underestimated.
Historically, many victims have experienced a phenomenon whereby:
abuse is discussed,
evidence is heard,
patterns are recognised,
yet the abuse itself is never clearly recorded within the outcome.
The result is that victims frequently leave proceedings without any formal recognition that what occurred was abuse.
The move toward greater judicial recognition seeks to address this issue.
It acknowledges that naming abuse matters.
Recognition matters.
Recording matters.
Because institutional memory matters.
What SAFECHAIN™ Supports
SAFECHAIN™ supports:
Explicit Recognition
Abuse should not disappear into procedural language.
Where coercive control, economic abuse, psychological abuse, or domestic abuse is established within proceedings, this should be clearly recognised.
Improved Institutional Visibility
Recognition assists:
future safeguarding decisions;
risk assessment;
victim protection;
and institutional learning.
Consistency
Clear identification reduces ambiguity regarding the nature of conduct under examination.
What SAFECHAIN™ Would Like To See Improved
SAFECHAIN™ believes the next stage of reform should focus upon:
Safeguarding Continuity
Findings should not remain trapped within individual proceedings.
Appropriate safeguarding information should support continuity across systems.
Structured Participation Findings
Courts should explicitly record:
participation barriers;
safeguarding vulnerabilities;
coercive control indicators;
and procedural disadvantage.
Economic Abuse Findings
Economic abuse remains one of the least consistently identified forms of abuse.
Future reform should encourage clearer recording of:
asset concealment;
coercive debt;
financial restriction;
housing-related abuse;
and economic domination.
The Missing Piece
The Problem Is No Longer Recognition
The law increasingly recognises:
coercive control;
economic abuse;
psychological abuse;
emotional abuse;
threatening behaviour;
stalking;
surveillance;
technological abuse;
and controlling behaviour.
The issue is no longer:
legal recognition.
The issue is:
operational implementation.
Victims frequently move through:
police systems;
family proceedings;
housing services;
healthcare;
safeguarding teams;
financial institutions;
and local authorities.
Yet these systems still frequently operate separately.
Information fragments.
Chronology fragments.
Safeguarding visibility fragments.
This is where many victims continue experiencing harm despite legal progress.
The SAFECHAIN™ Recommendation
The next phase of reform should focus upon:
Participation Integrity™
Ensuring vulnerable individuals can meaningfully engage within proceedings.
Documentation Continuity™
Reducing repeated disclosure and evidential fragmentation.
Safeguarding Interoperability™
Allowing institutions to work coherently across systems.
Economic Abuse Infrastructure
Moving beyond recognition toward operational protection.
Behavioural Literacy
Improving institutional understanding of trauma, coercive control, and vulnerability.
Institutional Accountability
Measuring outcomes rather than merely procedural completion.
Conclusion
The Victims and Courts Act 2026 and the ongoing implementation of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 represent genuine progress.
The law increasingly recognises what survivors have long known:
Domestic abuse is not defined solely by violence.
It may include:
coercive control;
emotional abuse;
psychological abuse;
economic abuse;
surveillance;
intimidation;
isolation;
manipulation;
threatening behaviour;
stalking;
technological monitoring;
and sustained behavioural domination.
Recognition matters.
DAPOs matter.
Judicial recognition matters.
But recognition alone is not enough.
The next challenge is ensuring that safeguarding systems become as sophisticated as the legislation itself.
Because protection does not occur when abuse is merely recognised.
Protection occurs when institutions can respond coherently, consistently, and effectively across the full reality of a victim's life.
That is the challenge that remains.
That is the challenge SAFECHAIN™ seeks to address.
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAIN™ is a proprietary safeguarding interoperability and institutional continuity framework authored by Samantha Avril-Andreassen. Reproduction or implementation of this framework without permission is prohibited.