Australia
Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence – A National Legal Response(ALRC Report 114) 2010.
Abstract: This report presents a comprehensive review of legal responses to Family Violence in Australia. The commissions received many submissions. Chapter 12 discussed penalties and sentencing for breach of protection orders. The report notes that: ‘The overwhelming majority of stakeholders that addressed this issue were in favour of sanctions that could help to change the behaviour of those who commit violence. Therefore, there was support for ‘perpetrator programs’ such as violence and drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs; probation with special conditions, such as attending ‘perpetrators’ courses or counselling’; men’s behaviour programs; psychiatric assessment and treatment; anger management programs; and educational programs on family violence with ‘therapeutic interventions’’ (at [12.172].) Other options raised (as an alternative to imprisonment) included community service orders (provided the work associated with the penalty is ‘meaningful, constructive and rehabilitative’) (at [12.173])
The underlying issue in Chapters 13 and 14 is the way in which the criminal law accounts for the nature and dynamics of family violence. Criminal laws are traditionally perceived as ‘incident-based’, in that they are focused upon discrete acts forming the basis of individual offences. As identified in Chapter 5, family violence is characterised by patterns of controlling, coercive or dominating behaviour and may include both physical and non-physical violence [13.2].
Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. (2021). Defining and responding to coercive control: Policy brief (ANROWS Insights, 01/2021). Sydney: ANROWS.
Abstract: This policy brief aims to assist policymakers developing legal or policy and practice frameworks to prevent or respond to coercive control in relation to domestic and family violence (DFV). It addresses three considerations emerging from current debates on this topic. The first is the need for consistent definition of coercive control and its relationship to the definition of DFV in policy and legislative settings, Australia-wide. The second key consideration, criminalising coercive control, necessitates making an assessment of whether the existing evidence base supports the creation of a specific offence. The third involves reforming the culture of response to DFV, in and around the legal system and in other settings. In considering changes to the way we define and respond to coercive control, it is also necessary to keep front of mind the barriers that diverse groups of women face in our existing justice system, and mitigate risks and unintended consequences of legislative and policy change.
Stephanie Beckwith, Lauren Lowe, Liz Wall, Emily Stevens, Rachel Carson, Rae Kaspiew, Jasmine B. MacDonald, Jade McEwen and Melissa Willoughby, Coercive control Literature Review: Final Report (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2023).
Overview: This report presents a literature review on coercive control in the context of domestic and family violence, with a particular focus on the understanding of, and responses to coercive control in the Australian context. Commissioned by the Australian Attorney-General’s Department, this review focuses on identifying, summarising, analysing and synthesising the existing Australian academic research and evaluations on coercive control. The review highlights the complexities of defining, recognising, and responding to coercive control and identifies relevant gaps in the evidence base. Drawing from a range of quantitative and qualitative studies across scholarly and grey literature, including non-government reports, government and parliamentary reports, peak body reports, and position papers, this review captures the growing recognition of coercively controlling behaviour in the context of family and domestic violence.
Boxall H & Morgan A 2021. Experiences of coercive control among Australian women. Statistical Bulletin no. 30. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Abstract: Awareness of coercive control within the context of abusive intimate relationships is greater than ever before in Australia. However, there is limited research examining the different patterns and characteristics of abuse, particularly among large Australian samples.
This study examines the characteristics of violence and abuse reported by 1,023 Australian women who had recently experienced coercive control by their current or former partner. The most frequently reported behaviours were jealousy and suspicion of friends, constant insults, monitoring of movements and financial abuse. Over half of the respondents also reported experiencing physical forms of abuse (54%), including severe forms such as non-fatal strangulation (27%). One in three of these women also reported experiencing sexual violence during the survey period (30%). Women were much more likely to seek advice or support when they had also experienced physical or sexual forms of abuse.
Bruton, Crystal and Danielle Tyson, ‘Leaving Violent Men: A Study of Women’s Experiences of Separation in Victoria, Australia’ (2017) 51(3) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 339-354 https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865817746711
This article explores women’s experiences of leaving abusive relationships and seeks to combat assumptions about the nature of such relationships through in-depth interviews with 12 women who had separated from their male intimate partners (p 5). While separation is broadly recognised as a key time for increased risk of violence towards women and their children (p 1), studies demonstrate that most people believe women are able to leave violent relationships, and do not understand why they might stay (p 2). Such views place the responsibility for ending the violence on women, but in reality, these relationships often include complex circumstances, and the ‘stay/leave binary’ is rarely applicable (p 2). The results indicate that women’s experiences of coercive control significantly affected their decision-making in the context of separation (p 6):
•
Many women feared leaving because they were aware that separation may provoke retaliatory violence, with some experiencing an escalation of abusive behaviour when they attempted to leave (p 7);
•
Many women were motivated to leave the relationship in order to protect their children, especially where violence became directed towards the children (p 8);
•
Women’s attempts to leave their relationships were often hindered by their partner’s control over their finances (p 9); and
•
Women adopted strategies to manage their safety both during and following separation (pp 9-10), and many women experienced escalating violence after separation (pp 11-12).
Douglas, H. Women, Intimate Partner Violence and the Law (2021; OUP).
Abstract: This text explores the results of an interview study involving interviews with 65 women who had experienced domestic and family violence over three years. See chapter 3: Most women reported that the most difficult form of abuse they dealt with were forms of non-physical abuse, especially emotional abuse. Many women identified that non-physical abuse deeply impacted on their sense of self and freedom, and that it continued to affect them for years. Other forms of non-physical abuse that were also highlighted by the women included abusive tactics targeting their role as a mother, isolation within the relationship, financial abuse. The women in the study highlighted the particular impacts of non-physical forms of abuse, including isolation, financial abuse and threats about their visas, for women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds especially those women with insecure visa status.
Douglas H. Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 2018;18(1):84-99.
Abstract: This article considers how legal engagement can be an opportunity to exercise coercive control over a former intimate partner. Drawing on interviews with 65 women who engaged with the legal system as a result of violence in their intimate relationships, this article explores how women’s engagement with the legal system is frequently experienced as an extension of an intimate partner’s coercive control. It builds on existing research showing how legal processes provide an opportunity for perpetrators to continue and even expand their repertoire of coercive and controlling behaviours post-separation. I refer to this as legal systems abuse. This article explores women’s reported experiences and considers how expectations of equality of access to justice and fair hearing; concepts that underpin legal processes, can be reconciled with legal engagements that seek to end coercive and controlling behaviours. The article concludes that improved understanding of domestic and family violence as coercive control by legal actors may help to circumvent the opportunities for legal systems abuse.
Douglas, Heather and Ehler, Hannah (2022) Coercive Control and Judicial Education: A Consultation Report. (Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration).
Based on interviews with 28 judicial officers and 5 research experts this report considers how to best present information about coercive control in the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book and the information needed by judicial officers to better understand coercive control. Based on the detailed material outlined in the Report the key themes considered are the key aspects of coercive control that judicial officers seek explanation of; how coercive control should be explained to judicial officers; how judicial officers can respond to coercive control in the court room and general observations and red flags for identifying coercive control.
Fitz-Gibbon, Kate; Reeves, Ellen; Meyer, Silke; Walklate, Sandra (2023): Victim-survivors’ views on and expectations for the criminalisation of coercive control in Australia: Findings from a national survey. Monash University. Report.
This report presents findings from a national survey of 1261 Victim-survivors of coercive control. The survey examined victim-survivors’ views on the criminalisation of coercive control. It found that 87.5% of respondents believed that coercive control should be criminalised. 93% thought that criminalisation would improve awareness of coercive control. 72% of respondents thought that criminalisation of coercive control would make victims safer 31% of First Nations respondents thought that criminalising coercive control would make victim-survivors safer.
Henry, N., Gavey, N., & Johnson, K. (2022) Image-Based Sexual Abuse as a Means of Coercive Control: Victim-Survivor Experiences. Violence Against Women, online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012221114918.
Article reports on a study involving interviews with 29 women and one gender-diverse person who experienced image-based sexual abuse as part of a pattern of “coercive control.”
From Conclusion: The interviews demonstrated a diversity of experiences well beyond the paradigm of “revenge porn.” A common theme across these interviews was the dynamic of coercive control. Image-based sexual abuse is one of many abusive tactics employed (both technology- and nontechnology-based) to isolate and entrap victims within abusive relationships, or at the end of the relationship, to control, intimidate, punish, and degrade them.
Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control, Coercive control in domestic relationships. Report 1/57–June 2021, Parliament of New South Wales.
The report of the Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control found that “NSW laws do not respond well to coercive control as a type of abuse, and there is poor understanding of it in our community.” The Inquiry sought to identify better ways to respond to coercive control across the New South Wales community.
Chapter 2, “What is coercive control”, summarises coercive control:
Coercive control is a pattern of abuse that degrades, humiliates and isolates victims, and takes away their freedom and autonomy. It has severe psychological impacts on victims. While it does not always involve physical violence, it is a common factor in intimate partner homicides.
This chapter highlights the findings of the New South Wales Death Review Team that in 99% of intimate partner homicides from March 2008 to June 2016 'the relationship between the domestic violence victim and the domestic violence abuser was characterised by the abuser’s use of coercive and controlling behaviours towards the victim. In each of these cases the domestic violence abuser (all male) perpetrated various forms of abuse against the victim, including psychological abuse and emotional abuse.'
The chapter acknowledges the evidence of the NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that ‘many people have great difficulty recognising … behaviour that constitutes coercive control.’ It also highlights different ways abusers may exploit the individual cultural and personal characteristics of victims to abuse and control them. It also highlights the impacts of coercive control, including case studies of the impacts of psychological abuse, economic abuse, isolation and financial dependence and using temporary visa status to control victims.
MacDonald, Jasmine B., Melissa Willoughby, Pragya Gartoulla, Eliza Cotton, Evita March, Kristel Alla, and Cat Strawa, (2024) What the research evidence tells us about coercive control victimisation, AIFS.
Some key messages include (pp. 5-7):
•
We currently know little about the unique experiences of:
◦
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples
◦
People with disability
◦
LGBTQIA+ communities
◦
Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities
◦
People in older age groups (65+ years)
◦
Children and young people where there is coercive control between their parents
◦
Intersectional experiences across more than one of the above
•
Because of differences in definitions of coercive control and research design (including participant sampling methods) there is a wide range of figures reported across studies indicating how common coercive control victimisation is. The various design methods used mean it is not possible to know what the true prevalence of coercive control is in the Australian general population. In studies examining general population samples, 7.5% - 28% of participants may have experienced coercive control victimisation.
•
The evidence about risk factors for coercive control victimisation is mixed and somewhat inconclusive. A broad number of risk factors have been assessed but most in only a single study. Where risk factors have been assessed across more than one study, the findings have been inconsistent.
Miller P et al. 2016. Alcohol/Drug-Involved Family Violence in Australia (ADIVA). NDLERF monograph no. 68. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Abstract: Family and domestic violence (FDV) is a significant social issue that causes major social harm across Australia and in response, Commonwealth, state and territory governments have implemented various policy interventions. However, there is, to date, little evidence about what approach is most effective at reducing this violence, and very little research into how specific agencies, like police, can intervene on specific contributing factors of FDV, especially those that might be preventable. Despite the extensive evidence demonstrating the role that alcohol and, to a lesser extent, illicit and other drug use/abuse plays in FDV, there is a lack of information about how interventions that address this issue might be used by police or other agencies to reduce violence.
Nancarrow, H., Thomas, K., Ringland, V., & Modini, T. (2020). Accurately identifying the “person most in need of protection” in domestic and family violence law (Research report, 23/2020). Sydney: ANROWS.
Abstract: This in-house project was conducted by ANROWS. It aimed to support the effective identification of the “person most in need of protection” in cases where there is some ambiguity about who perpetrated domestic violence and abuse.
The research responded to a recommendation of the Queensland Domestic Violence Death Review and Advisory Board in its 2016-17 Annual Report. The Advisory Board reported that in just under half (44.4%) of all cases of female deaths subject to the review, the woman had been identified as a respondent to a domestic and family violence (DFV) protection order on at least one occasion. Further, in nearly all of the DFV-related deaths of Aboriginal people, the deceased had been recorded as both respondent and aggrieved prior to their death (p. 82). The Board’s report recommended research to identify how best to respond to the person most in need of protection where there are mutual allegations of violence and abuse (Recommendation 16).
Responding to that recommendation, the research used a mixed methods approach. This included a national analysis of statistical data (domestic violence order applications, police-issued orders and related criminal charges) and a national desktop review of existing legislative and police requirements and guidance on identifying the DFV victim or perpetrator. The project also involved an in-depth case study of Queensland as a state that has already incorporated the concept of the person most in need of protection into legislation.
The final report emphasises the need for improved guidance for police on identifying patterns of coercive control, and guidance for magistrates on how and when they can dismiss inappropriate applications and/or orders. It recommends clarifying processes of decision-making and accountability between police and the courts as a way of addressing the current ambiguity surrounding responsibility for the determination of the person most in need of protection.
NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team, Report 2017-2019, 2020, NSW Government.
Includes detail on deaths referred to the Coroner, drawing on both data analysis and in-depth case analyses. Useful information about how domestic violence-related homicides and suicides are recorded in NSW.
Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths, Family Violence Related Homicides, 1 January 2011-31 December 2015, June 2020, Coroner’s Court of Victoria.
Includes detail on domestic and family violence deaths referred to the Coroner.
Wangmann, J. (2022) ‘Law reform processes and criminalising coercive control’ Australian Feminist Law Journal 48(1):57-86 doi: 10.1080/13200968.2022.2138186
This article examines three Australian law reform processes established to address coercive control: the New South Wales (NSW) Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control, the Queensland Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, and the exposure Bill released for comment in South Australia (SA). The key question for these law reform processes was whether coercive control should be criminalised following the introduction of such offences in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. Ultimately all three Australian processes answered this question in the affirmative. The article explores the distinct differences in the processes undertaken, including the extent of participation from different groups in society, the level of engagement with implementation issues, and the degree to which the recommended new offence was positioned more critically within what we know about law reform in response to gender-based violence.
Walklate, S. et al., (2022) In control, out of control or losing control? Making sense of men’s reported experiences of coercive control through the lens of hegemonic masculinity, Journal of Criminology, 55(4):451-467 doi: 10.1177/26338076221127452
This article is based on data derived from a national online survey conducted in Australia in 2021. The aim of this paper is to explore, and better understand male reported experiences of coercive control victimisation. The survey was completed by 1261 people who identified as victim-survivors of coercive control, 206 (17%) of whom identified as men. The paper explores the men’s responses.
The authors observe: ‘The range of reported experiences of coercive control among this sample reflects remarkable symmetry with what is known about coercive control more generally and reflects similar experiences to that documented among women victim-survivors.’ (p10)
Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce (2021) Hear her voice volume 2 (Brisbane, Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce).
See pp 206- 229 where the Taskforce reports on submissions it received about judicial officers.
Examples of unsatisfactory treatment of victims by judicial officers are listed at p209 and include:
•
judicial officers refusing to grant protection orders and instead, telling victims to go to the family courts.
•
judicial officers refusing to put any protection orders in place unless the respondent came to court and then placing the burden on the victim to go away and collect further evidence to get protection.
•
a judicial officer requiring victims to provide a letter from a medical practitioner before they would allow the victim to make an application that the victim not be cross-examined by the perpetrator.
•
judicial officers applying the law inconsistently, including in relation to coercive control.
•
a judicial officer who described a perpetrator placing surveillance cameras throughout the house to watch the movements of the victim as merely being signs of an unhealthy relationship breakdown rather than domestic violence.
•
a victim making her own application felt unable to pursue it due to a lack of support and inconsistent guidance from the judicial officer.
•
a judicial officer who, without speaking to the aggrieved, dismissed an application for a protection order on the basis that the respondent had contacted the court to advise that they were overseas and unlikely to return.
International
L. Kevin Hamberger, Sadie E. Larsen, Amy Lehrner, Coercive control in intimate partner violence, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Volume 37, 2017, Pages 1-11, ISSN 1359-1789.
Abstract: The construct of coercive control has been central to many conceptualizations of intimate partner violence (IPV), yet there is widespread inconsistency in the literature regarding how this construct is defined and measured. This article provides a comprehensive literature review on coercive control in regards to conceptualizations, definitions, operationalization, and measurement; and attempts to provide a synthesis and recommendations for future research. A summary and critique of measures used to assess coercive control in IPV is provided. At least three facets of coercive control are identified: 1) intentionality or goal orientation in the abuser (versus motivation), 2) a negative perception of the controlling behavior by the victim, and 3) the ability of the abuser to obtain control through the deployment of a credible threat. Measurement challenges and opportunities posed by such a multifaceted definition are discussed.
Katz, E (2016) Beyond the Physical Incident Model: How Children Living with Domestic Violence are Harmed By and Resist Regimes of Coercive Control, Child Abuse Review Vol. 25, 46-59.
Abstract: This article begins to build knowledge of how non-violent coercive controlling behaviours can be central to children’s experiences of domestic violence. It considers how children can be harmed by, and resist, coercive controlling tactics perpetrated by their father/father-figure against their mother. Already, we know much about how women/mothers experience non-physical forms of domestic violence, including psychological/emotional/verbal and financial abuse, isolation, and monitoring of their activities. However, this knowledge has not yet reached most children and domestic violence research, which tends to focus on children’s exposure to physical violence. In this qualitative study, 30 participants from the UK, 15 mothers and 15 of their children (most aged 10-14) who had separated from domestic violence perpetrators, participated in semi-structured interviews. All participants were living in the community. Using the ‘Framework’ approach to thematically analyse the data, findings indicated that perpetrators’/fathers’ coercive control often prevented children from spending time with mothers and grandparents, visiting other children’s houses, and engaging in extra-curricular activities. These non-violent behaviours from perpetrators/fathers placed children in isolated, disempowering and constrained worlds which could hamper children’s resilience and development and contribute to emotional/behavioural problems. Implications for practice and the need to empower children in these circumstances are discussed.
Katz, E., Nikupeteri, A., & Laitinen, M., ‘When Coercive Control Continues to Harm Children: Post-Separation Fathering, Stalking and Domestic Violence’ (2020) Child Abuse Review.
Abstract: This article highlights how domestic violence perpetrators can use coercive control against their children after their ex-partner has separated from them. It provides insights into how children experience coercive control post-separation by drawing from two data sets: one from the UK and one from Finland. The data comprised narratives of 29 children and young people aged from 4 to 21 years old. Three overarching themes arose from the data: 1) dangerous fathering that made children frightened and unsafe; 2) ‘admirable’ fathering, where fathers/father figures appeared as ‘caring’, ‘concerned’, ‘indulgent’ and/or ‘vulnerable-victims’; and 3) omnipresent fathering that continually constrained children’s lives. Dangerous fathering made children’s lives frightening, constrained and unpredictable. Admirable fathering was found to be a powerful tool of control when combined with dangerous fathering, because admirable fathering increased father-child emotional bonds and could make children want to see/live with their fathers, whilst dangerous fathering simultaneously made them fearful of him. Admirable fathering was typically aimed at professionals and wider communities, and could occur alongside fathers/father figures stalking, harassing and/or attacking ex-partners and children when they were not in the public eye. Perpetrators aimed to portray themselves as ‘caring’, ‘concerned’, ‘indulgent’ and/or ‘vulnerable-victim’ fathers, and to make their ex-partners seem like perpetrators or deficient mothers. Perpetrators disguised their use of coercive control tactics as ‘admirable’ behaviour. With respect to omnipresent fathering, children were fearful that their father/father figure could appear at any time to attack, harass, manipulate, upset or kidnap them or their mothers. This behaviour led to some children continuously monitoring their surroundings as a protective strategy. Fathers/father figures were able to maintain some degree of control, domination and emotional power over children even when they were not physically present. The article suggests that robust measures are necessary to prevent coercive control perpetrating fathers/father figures from using father-child relationships to continue exerting coercive control on children and ex-partners.
Kelly, Liz; Nicola Sharp and Renate Klein Finding the Costs of Freedom How women and children rebuild their lives after domestic violence 2014, Solace Woman’s Aid.
See especially pages 11-12 where the authors draw on Evan Stark’s research to explain the concept of coercive control. ‘The concept of coercive control recognises that it is the everydayness of living with unpredictability which saps women’s energy, depletes their sense of self and isolates them from others: it decreases their ‘space for action’… intimate partner violence is rarely a single incident but a pattern of behaviour that extends beyond physical force, beyond the home and beyond the duration of a relationship. The concept of ‘coercive control’ is particularly insightful since he argues that physical and sexual abuse is interwoven with three equally important tactics: control, intimidation and isolation. It is their toxic combination which entraps leading him to argue that domestic violence is not a simple crime of assault but a ‘liberty crime’ which creates conditions of un-freedom … Coercive control is distinctive in that it draws on personalised knowledge of women’s movements, habits, resources and vulnerabilities.’ (references removed).
Lohmann, S., Cowlishaw, S., Ney, L., O’Donnell, M., and Felmingham, K. (2024) ‘The trauma and mental health impacts of coercive control: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Trauma, Violence and Abuse 25(1):630-647, doi: 10.1177/15248380231162972.
Abstract (extract): The aims of this review were to (a) synthesize all available evidence regarding associations with coercive control and mental health outcomes including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex PTSD, and depression; and (b) compare these with associations involving broader categories of psychological IPV. Primary studies which measured associations of coercive control with PTSD, complex PTSD, depression, or other mental health symptoms, were identified via a systematic search of electronic databases (PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus). Eligible studies involved observational designs and reported associations between coercive control and mental health outcomes, among participants who were at least 18 years old. Studies were published in peer-reviewed journals and English language. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to synthesize correlational data from eligible studies. The search identified 68 studies while data from 45 studies could be included in the meta-analyses. These indicated moderate associations involving coercive control and PTSD (r = .32; 95% confidence interval [.28, .37]) and depression (r = .27; [.22, .31]). These associations were comparable to those involving psychological IPV and PTSD (r = .34; [.25, .42]) and depression (r = .33; [.26, .40]). Only one study reported on the relationship between coercive control and complex PTSD and meta-analyses could not be performed. This review indicated that coercive control exposure is moderately associated with both PTSD and depression. This highlights that mental health care is needed for those exposed to coercive control, including trauma-informed psychological interventions.
Monkton-Smith, Jane (2022) In control: Dangerous relationships and how they end in murder. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Monkton Smith is a former police officer and internationally renowned professor of public protection, she has developed her research into an eight-stage homicide timeline, laying out identifiable stages in which coercive relationships can escalate to violence and murder. Drawing on disciplines including psychology, sociology and law, Monckton Smith talks to victims, their families and killers to piece together how and why abuse occurs.
Myhill A, Hohl K. The “Golden Thread”: Coercive Control and Risk Assessment for Domestic Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2019; 34(21-22):4477-4497.
Abstract: Research on risk assessment for domestic violence has to date focused primarily on the predictive power of individual risk factors and the statistical validity of risk assessment tools in predicting future physical assault in sub-sets of cases dealt with by the police. This study uses data from risk assessment forms from a random sample of cases of domestic violence reported to the police. An innovative latent trait model is used to test whether a cluster of risk factors associated with coercive control is most representative of the type of abuse that comes to the attention of the police. Factors associated with a course of coercive and controlling conduct, including perpetrators’ threats, controlling behavior and sexual coercion, and victims’ isolation and fear, had highest item loadings and were thus the most representative of the overall construct. Sub-lethal physical violence—choking and use of weapons—was also consistent with a course of controlling conduct. Whether a physical injury was sustained during the current incident, however, was not associated consistently either with the typical pattern of abuse or with other context-specific risk factors such as separation from the perpetrator. Implications for police practice and the design of risk assessment tools are discussed. We conclude that coercive control is the “golden thread” running through risk identification and assessment for domestic violence and that risk assessment tools structured around coercive control can help police officers move beyond an “incident-by-incident” response and toward identifying the dangerous patterns of behavior that precede domestic homicide.
Stark, Evan, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Oxford University Press, 2007).
This book is a key text on domestic and family violence. Although Stark is based in the United States his work has been highly influential in Australia. In this book Stark explains that domestic and family violence is a pattern of controlling behaviours more akin to terrorism and hostage-taking. Drawing on court records, interviews, and FBI statistics, Stark details coercive strategies that men use to deny women their very personhood, from food logs to micromanaging dress, speech, sexual activity, and work. Stark urges us to move beyond the injury model and focus on this form of victimization. Stark reframes abuse as a liberty crime rather than a crime of assault. He explains how the perpetrator is able to control the victim through a variety of techniques which essentially lead to deprivation of liberty (pp373-374).
Stark Evan, Hester Marianne. Coercive Control: Update and Review. Violence Against Women. 2019;25(1):81-104.
This article reviews the background, introduction, and critical response to new criminal offenses of coercive control in England/Wales and Scotland. How the new Scottish offense is implemented will determine whether it can overcome the shortcomings of the English law. We then review new evidence on four dimensions of coercive control: the relationship between “control” and “violence,” coercive control in same-sex couples, measuring coercive control, and children’s experience of coercive control. Coercive control is not a type of violence. Indeed, level of control predicts a range of negative outcomes heretofore associated with physical abuse, including post-separation violence and sexual assault; important differences in coercive control dynamics distinguish male homosexual from lesbian couples; measuring coercive control requires innovative ways of aggregating and categorizing data; and how children experience coercive control is a problem area that offers enormous promise for the years ahead.
Tolmie, J., Smith, R., and Wilson, D. ‘Understanding intimate partner violence: Why coercive control requires a social and systemic entrapment framework, Violence Against Women 30(1):54-74, doi: 10/1177/10778012231205585.
Abstract (extract): The aims of this review were to (a) synthesize all available evidence regarding associations with coercive control and mental health outcomes including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex PTSD, and depression; and (b) compare these with associations involving broader categories of psychological IPV. Primary studies which measured associations of coercive control with PTSD, complex PTSD, depression, or other mental health symptoms, were identified via a systematic search of electronic databases (PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus). Eligible studies involved observational designs and reported associations between coercive control and mental health outcomes, among participants who were at least 18 years old. Studies were published in peer-reviewed journals and English language. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to synthesize correlational data from eligible studies. The search identified 68 studies while data from 45 studies could be included in the meta-analyses. These indicated moderate associations involving coercive control and PTSD (r = .32; 95% confidence interval [.28, .37]) and depression (r = .27; [.22, .31]). These associations were comparable to those involving psychological IPV and PTSD (r = .34; [.25, .42]) and depression (r = .33; [.26, .40]). Only one study reported on the relationship between coercive control and complex PTSD and meta-analyses could not be performed. This review indicated that coercive control exposure is moderately associated with both PTSD and depression. This highlights that mental health care is needed for those exposed to coercive control, including trauma-informed psychological interventions.
Tutty, L., Radtke & Nixon, K. (2023) ‘“He Tells People That I am Going to Kill My Children”: Post- Separation Coercive Control in Men Who Perpetrate IPV’, Violence Against Women, online first, doi 10.1177/10778012231166408
This research examined men’s use of coercive controlling tactics against female partners after separation. This mixed-methods study is based on secondary analysis of interviews / surveys involving 346 Canadian women who experienced coercive controlling tactics used by their ex-partners (86.4% identified at least one). The researchers also interviewed another 34 women. The article found that ‘abusive partners used numerous strategies to coercively control their ex-partners by stalking/harassing them, using financial abuse and discrediting the women to various authorities’ after separation.
Walker, S.J., Hester, M., McCarthy, E. (2023) ‘The use of chemical control within coercive controlling intimate partner violence and abuse’, Violence Against Women, doi: 10.10778012231197579, PMID: 37661810.
Based on testimonies of 37 victims-survivors and nine domestic abuse practitioners in the UK we identify varying tactics used to chemically coerce and control ( eg use of substances, including prescribed medication, as part of coercive controlling domestic abuse, including the withholding of HIV medication in the context of intimate partner abuse and the use of drugs such as crystal methamphetamine, GHB or mephedrone in the context of “chemsex”) …the use of chemical restraints amongst victims-survivors is much more of a problem than we currently know and that people accessing support for IPVA do not tend to disclose this type of behavior because often they do not recognize it as abuse…perpetrators do not necessarily need to use physical violence to coerce and control the victim, which would be more likely to bring them to the attention of the authorities. (Extract form abstract).
Woodyatt, Cory and Rob Stephenson, ‘Emotional intimate partner violence experienced by men in same-sex relationships’ (2016) 18(10) Culture, Health and Sexuality 1137-1149.
Abstract: This US study is the first to examine the types, antecedents and experiences of emotional intimate partner violence (‘IPV’) that occur between male partners (p 1145). The study conducted 10 focus group discussions with gay and bisexual men (n = 64 participants) (p 1140). The study found that gay and bisexual men perceive emotional IPV to be commonplace and the ‘most threatening form of intimate partner violence’ (p 1144-6). The participants identified the most common antecedents to be jealousy, power differentials, and internalised homophobia (p 1143). The descriptions of emotional IPV in male-male relationships is similar to male-female relationships, but some coercive behaviours manifest differently (p 1145). For example, threatening to disclose a partner’s sexual identity was identified as an example of emotional violence and coercive control (p 1145).
Understanding coercive control
The National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence (‘National Principles’), which were released by the Australian and state and territory governments in September 2023 recognise that coercive control is almost always an underpinning dynamic of family and domestic violence. Coercive control involves perpetrators exerting power and dominance over victim-survivors using patterns of abusive behaviour that create fear and deny liberty and autonomy. Perpetrators may use physical or non-physical abusive behaviours, or a combination of both.
The National Principles set out a shared understanding about the common features and impacts of coercive control, and guiding considerations to inform responses. The principles were developed to help raise awareness of coercive control, inform more effective responses to family and domestic violence, and promote more consistent support and safety outcomes for victim-survivors. The development and implementation of legal and justice responses to coercive control should be underpinned by the shared understanding of coercive control established by the National Principles.
The National Principles were informed by a literature review by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and developed through extensive public consultation and guidance from an Expert Advisory Committee comprising victim-survivors and representatives of groups at increased risk of coercive control, academic, legal, and social service experts, and family violence advocates.
Professor Evan Stark has described coercive control as ‘a pattern of domination that includes tactics to isolate, degrade, exploit, and control’ victims. A perpetrator’s abusive behaviours can be subtle and insidious, and individually targeted and tailored to the victim-survivor. Behaviours or actions used to control a victim-survivor may not be readily apparent to people outside the relationship without considering the broader pattern of behaviour over time.
The behaviours associated with coercive control can take many different forms including any of the forms of domestic and family violence considered in this benchbook. Common behaviours that may be used by perpetrators as part of coercive control include but are not limited to:
•
controlling what a person does, such as what they wear, what they eat, and where they go
•
isolation from friends and family
•
emotional abuse including humiliation and threats and intimidation
•
surveillance and monitoring, often carried out online
•
regularly criticising a person, or manipulating or blaming them so they doubt themselves and their experiences (often referred to as ‘gaslighting’)
•
stopping a person from following their religion or spiritual or cultural practices
•
economic and financial abuse and exploitation
Victim-survivors commonly describe coercive control as feeling like ‘walking on eggshells’ and report they need to ask permission to do small everyday things and fear the repercussions of not fulfilling their abuser’s expectations or demands.
In some relationships physical violence is part of the pattern of coercive control and incidents of physical violence may be routine and frequently repeated. Other victim-survivors report that physical violence is rare or a once-off and occurred early in the relationship, but establishes the abuser’s capacity and potential for physical violence.
Some perpetrators who utilise coercive control do not perpetrate physical violence and use other methods to establish and maintain control.
Perpetrators can misuse or manipulate services, systems and processes (such as within the legal, child protection or social service systems) to facilitate their abuse. This is referred to as ‘systems abuse’.
A perpetrator may also target the victim-survivor's children to extend their control, sometimes using children as a tool of surveillance or intimidation.
Perpetrators using coercive control draw on their specific knowledge of the victim-survivor to entrap them, and the tactics used to assert control may change over time.
The impacts of coercive control are pervasive, and may include detrimental impacts on emotional, psychological and physical health, social connections, cultural and spiritual beliefs, and economic security. Impacts are also intersecting and cumulative, rather than incident-specific. Many victim-survivors identify that non-physical abuse deeply impacts on their sense of self and freedom, and often continues to affect them years after separation. Many victim-survivors also report that the most difficult forms of abuse they experienced were non-physical, especially emotional abuse.
Coercive control is gendered and is mainly perpetrated by men against women. Coercive control can be used by perpetrators against current or former intimate partners, as well as in family dynamics where control may be exerted by parents over children, by adult children or grandchildren over elders, or between siblings. Coercive control is particularly prevalent in relationships where there is an imbalance of power.
Coercive control may occur throughout a relationship, or may begin or escalate at times of heightened risk, for example, pregnancy, attempted or actual separation, and during court proceedings. Where a perpetrator perceives certain events to be a threat to their control and domination over the victim-survivor, they may escalate abusive behaviours to attempt to re-establish, maintain or increase control.
The community and broader service and response system, including law enforcement and the courts, can typically focus on physical violence and single or episodic acts of violence in isolation, rather than considering patterns of abusive behaviour over time and their cumulative impacts. This can make it easy for perpetrators to hide their actions, and the abuse being overlooked and/or minimised.
Incident-based responses can also heighten the risks of misidentifying the victim-survivor as the perpetrator. This can occur when first responders or other service providers or systems fail to recognise when someone is using physical force or other behaviours against a perpetrator to protect themselves and other family members, often children and young people. Services and systems responding to coercive control can then misidentify the person most in need of protection and charge the victim-survivor incorrectly as the predominant aggressor.
Use of retaliatory violence or self-defence against a perpetrator are not coercive control.
As coercive control depends on context, evidence or information about the context and pattern of behaviours – or how a particular action or behaviour has become a tool of control – may assist the decision-maker to identify coercive control and also help ensure the victim-survivor is not misidentified as a perpetrator.
Some judicial officers have considered coercive control. A selection of examples are considered in the tab attached to this subsection.
Researchers have suggested that coercive control is a common thread running through risk identification and assessment for domestic violence.
Understanding coercive control
The National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence (‘National Principles’), which were released by the Australian and state and territory governments in September 2023 recognise that coercive control is almost always an underpinning dynamic of family and domestic violence. Coercive control involves perpetrators exerting power and dominance over victim-survivors using patterns of abusive behaviour that create fear and deny liberty and autonomy. Perpetrators may use physical or non-physical abusive behaviours, or a combination of both.
The National Principles set out a shared understanding about the common features and impacts of coercive control, and guiding considerations to inform responses. The principles were developed to help raise awareness of coercive control, inform more effective responses to family and domestic violence, and promote more consistent support and safety outcomes for victim-survivors. The development and implementation of legal and justice responses to coercive control should be underpinned by the shared understanding of coercive control established by the National Principles.
The National Principles were informed by a literature review by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and developed through extensive public consultation and guidance from an Expert Advisory Committee comprising victim-survivors and representatives of groups at increased risk of coercive control, academic, legal, and social service experts, and family violence advocates.
Professor Evan Stark has described coercive control as ‘a pattern of domination that includes tactics to isolate, degrade, exploit, and control’ victims. A perpetrator’s abusive behaviours can be subtle and insidious, and individually targeted and tailored to the victim-survivor. Behaviours or actions used to control a victim-survivor may not be readily apparent to people outside the relationship without considering the broader pattern of behaviour over time.
The behaviours associated with coercive control can take many different forms including any of the forms of domestic and family violence considered in this benchbook. Common behaviours that may be used by perpetrators as part of coercive control include but are not limited to:
•
controlling what a person does, such as what they wear, what they eat, and where they go
•
isolation from friends and family
•
emotional abuse including humiliation and threats and intimidation
•
surveillance and monitoring, often carried out online
•
regularly criticising a person, or manipulating or blaming them so they doubt themselves and their experiences (often referred to as ‘gaslighting’)
•
stopping a person from following their religion or spiritual or cultural practices
•
economic and financial abuse and exploitation
Victim-survivors commonly describe coercive control as feeling like ‘walking on eggshells’ and report they need to ask permission to do small everyday things and fear the repercussions of not fulfilling their abuser’s expectations or demands.
In some relationships physical violence is part of the pattern of coercive control and incidents of physical violence may be routine and frequently repeated. Other victim-survivors report that physical violence is rare or a once-off and occurred early in the relationship, but establishes the abuser’s capacity and potential for physical violence.
Some perpetrators who utilise coercive control do not perpetrate physical violence and use other methods to establish and maintain control.
Perpetrators can misuse or manipulate services, systems and processes (such as within the legal, child protection or social service systems) to facilitate their abuse. This is referred to as ‘systems abuse’.
A perpetrator may also target the victim-survivor's children to extend their control, sometimes using children as a tool of surveillance or intimidation.
Perpetrators using coercive control draw on their specific knowledge of the victim-survivor to entrap them, and the tactics used to assert control may change over time.
The impacts of coercive control are pervasive, and may include detrimental impacts on emotional, psychological and physical health, social connections, cultural and spiritual beliefs, and economic security. Impacts are also intersecting and cumulative, rather than incident-specific. Many victim-survivors identify that non-physical abuse deeply impacts on their sense of self and freedom, and often continues to affect them years after separation. Many victim-survivors also report that the most difficult forms of abuse they experienced were non-physical, especially emotional abuse.
Coercive control is gendered and is mainly perpetrated by men against women. Coercive control can be used by perpetrators against current or former intimate partners, as well as in family dynamics where control may be exerted by parents over children, by adult children or grandchildren over elders, or between siblings. Coercive control is particularly prevalent in relationships where there is an imbalance of power.
Coercive control may occur throughout a relationship, or may begin or escalate at times of heightened risk, for example, pregnancy, attempted or actual separation, and during court proceedings. Where a perpetrator perceives certain events to be a threat to their control and domination over the victim-survivor, they may escalate abusive behaviours to attempt to re-establish, maintain or increase control.
The community and broader service and response system, including law enforcement and the courts, can typically focus on physical violence and single or episodic acts of violence in isolation, rather than considering patterns of abusive behaviour over time and their cumulative impacts. This can make it easy for perpetrators to hide their actions, and the abuse being overlooked and/or minimised.
Incident-based responses can also heighten the risks of misidentifying the victim-survivor as the perpetrator. This can occur when first responders or other service providers or systems fail to recognise when someone is using physical force or other behaviours against a perpetrator to protect themselves and other family members, often children and young people. Services and systems responding to coercive control can then misidentify the person most in need of protection and charge the victim-survivor incorrectly as the predominant aggressor.
Use of retaliatory violence or self-defence against a perpetrator are not coercive control.
As coercive control depends on context, evidence or information about the context and pattern of behaviours – or how a particular action or behaviour has become a tool of control – may assist the decision-maker to identify coercive control and also help ensure the victim-survivor is not misidentified as a perpetrator.
Some judicial officers have considered coercive control. A selection of examples are considered in the tab attached to this subsection.
Researchers have suggested that coercive control is a common thread running through risk identification and assessment for domestic violence.