How to defend allegations of coercive control in family proceedings

Allegations of coercive control are now a regular feature of contested family proceedings. Where the allegations are seriously made and supported, the court will hear them carefully. Where they are not, the court will say so. The way a defendant approaches the allegations significantly affects how the court receives them.

This guide explains the legal framework, how coercive control allegations are decided in the family court and how to prepare a credible defence.

What is coercive control?

Coercive control is defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 as a pattern of behaviour by one partner against another that:

• Has a serious effect on the victim
• The perpetrator knew or ought to have known would have a serious effect
• Includes controlling, coercive, threatening, degrading or violent behaviour

The criminal offence requires the parties to be in an intimate or family relationship and the behaviour to have caused the victim to fear violence on at least two occasions, or to have caused serious alarm or distress with a substantial adverse effect on the victim's day-to-day activities.

In family court, coercive control is a recognised form of domestic abuse for the purposes of welfare decisions. The standard of proof is the civil standard (balance of probabilities), not the criminal standard.

How the family court approaches allegations

The family court approach to coercive control was significantly developed by the Court of Appeal in Re H-N and subsequent decisions. The key features are:

• The court looks at the overall pattern of behaviour, not just individual incidents
• Coercive control can be established without physical violence
• The court takes a broad approach to evidence
• The impact on the alleged victim is considered carefully
• Findings are made only where the pattern is established on the balance of probabilities

Where allegations are seriously contested, the court usually lists a fact-finding hearing.

The fact-finding hearing

At a fact-finding hearing, the court hears evidence about specific allegations and makes findings on each. The structure typically involves:

• A Scott Schedule listing the allegations and responses
• Witness statements from both parties
• Witness statements from any supporting witnesses
• Documentary evidence (text messages, photographs, medical records)
• Oral evidence from the parties and any witnesses
• Cross-examination
• Closing submissions
• Findings by the judge

The hearing is often listed for a day or two days. Preparation is intensive.

Approaching the defence

Take the allegations seriously

The starting point is to engage with the allegations carefully and respond to each. Dismissive or angry responses suggest the defendant is not taking the issues seriously.

Focus on the specifics

Coercive control allegations are sometimes pleaded in general terms. Where they are, ask for specifics. The court usually requires allegations to be pleaded with reasonable particularity. General allegations are harder for the court to assess.

Respond to each allegation in writing

Your witness statement should respond to each allegation specifically. For each, set out:

• What is alleged
• Whether you accept any part of the allegation
• What you say happened
• What evidence supports your account

Generic denials are not persuasive. Specific factual responses are.

Provide context where appropriate

Sometimes the context of an incident matters. If an allegation describes behaviour without context, the context may be relevant to how the court interprets it. Be careful, though: providing context that effectively admits the underlying behaviour rarely helps.

Gather supporting evidence

Useful evidence often includes:

• Text messages and emails showing the tone of the relationship over time
• Photographs and social media posts from the relevant period
• Statements from friends, family or colleagues who observed the relationship
• Documentary evidence relating to specific allegations (work records, medical records, travel records)
• Evidence of the alleged victim's conduct that is inconsistent with the allegations

Be honest about anything you have done

Wholesale denial of everything is rarely the right strategy. Most relationships involve at least some moments of conflict. The court is more likely to believe a witness who acknowledges some difficulties and explains them than one who claims the relationship was perfect.

If you genuinely behaved badly in some respect (lost your temper, said hurtful things, withdrew affection during arguments), it may be better to acknowledge it and explain than to deny everything and risk being disbelieved on points that the court finds against you.

Common difficulties in defending coercive control allegations

The pattern problem

Coercive control is about pattern, not single incidents. Each individual incident may sound innocuous in isolation. The court is asked to see how they combine. This is harder to defend than discrete allegations of physical violence.

Records that look bad

Text messages or emails that, taken out of context, appear controlling can be difficult to explain. Providing the wider context is essential.

Evidence from witnesses close to the alleged victim

Family members or close friends of the alleged victim may give corroborative evidence. Challenging their credibility needs to be done carefully.

Emotional witness evidence

The alleged victim's distress, even if some allegations are not supported, can be persuasive. The court is alive to this but it remains a factor.

What does not usually help

Attacking the alleged victim

Aggressive cross-examination, or witness statements that attack the alleged victim's character, often backfire. The court is sensitive to victim-blaming.

Counter-allegations made for the first time

Where a defendant raises counter-allegations of abuse for the first time at fact-finding, the court may treat them with caution unless they are supported.

Wholesale denial of any difficulties

Relationships have ups and downs. Wholesale denial of any conflict often lacks credibility.

Refusing to engage with the welfare concerns

Even where you successfully challenge the allegations, you need to engage with the welfare implications. Refusing to do so undermines your case overall.

The consequences of findings

If findings of coercive control are made against you, they will affect:

• The court's approach to child arrangements
• Whether direct contact will be ordered, and if so under what conditions
• Whether supervised contact or contact centre arrangements may be required
• The willingness of the court to allow you parental involvement in major decisions

However, findings of coercive control do not automatically mean no contact. The court still has to consider the welfare of the children and what is best for them going forward.

If allegations are not established

If the court rejects the allegations, the case continues but on a different footing. The court will then consider child arrangements based on the welfare of the children without the overlay of established abuse.

That said, the fact that allegations were made and not established does not automatically mean they were malicious. The court is careful not to penalise an alleged victim simply because their allegations did not meet the threshold.

When to take legal advice

Fact-finding hearings on coercive control are demanding. The legal framework is technical, the evidence is detailed, and the consequences of findings are significant. For any contested fact-finding, full barrister representation is strongly recommended.

A direct access barrister with family law experience can advise on the strength of your defence, prepare your witness statement, draft the Scott Schedule response and represent you at the hearing.

Get expert advice without instructing a solicitor

If you would like a specialist barrister to look at your matter, we can usually arrange a fixed-fee quote within 24 hours. There is no obligation at any stage and the initial enquiry is free. Submit your case and our team will be in touch.