The
Guardian has reported[1] that s.76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which was made law on
29 December 2015, has produced just 62 prosecutions in the 8 months since it
was brought into force. The new law created the offence of engaging in
controlling or coercive conduct in an intimate or family relationship. It is
primarily aimed at dealing with non-violent behaviour in such a relationship,
but violent behaviour is nonetheless included in the offence. This post aims to look at some of the criticism the law has attracted, as well as why
there has only been a very small number of prosecutions.
The Law
S.76 is entitled ‘controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or
family relationship’, and covers the following situation.
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A repeatedly or
continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is
controlling or coercive,
(b) at the time of the behaviour, A and B are
personally connected,
(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and
(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour
will have a serious effect on B.
The
offence is triable either way, carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment.
A statutory defence is provided for in s.76(8), where the perpetrator shows
that the relevant acts committed were done in the belief that it was in the
victim’s best interests, and the behaviour was objectively reasonable. The
defence in s.76(8) does not apply if the behaviour made the victim fear
violence would be used.[2]
The Guidance
What
is ‘controlling or coercive’ is not precisely defined. The Home Office has
published guidance called Controlling or
Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship: Statutory Guidance
Framework (December 2015)[3]
which provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of what behaviours are
associated with coercion or control.
This list
includes the following:
· isolating a person from
their friends and family;
· depriving them of their
basic needs;
· monitoring their time;
· monitoring
a person via online communication tools or using spyware;
· taking
control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who
they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep;
· depriving
them of access to support services, such as specialist support or medical
services;
· repeatedly
putting them down such as telling them they are worthless;
· enforcing
rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim;
· forcing
the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or
abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities;
· financial
abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive
allowance;
· threats to hurt or kill;
· threats
to a child;
· threats
to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to ‘out’ someone).
· assault;
· criminal
damage (such as destruction of household goods);
· rape;
· preventing
a person from having access to transport or from working.
Also
contained in the guidance is a more general description of what controlling and
coercive behaviour is.
Controlling
behaviour covers a ‘a range of acts which are designed to make a person
subordinate and/or dependant by isolating them from sources of support,
exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of
the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their
everyday behaviour.
Coercive
behaviour is a ‘continuing act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats,
humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten
their victim, including ‘honour’ based violence, FGM, forced marriage, and
victims are not confined to one gender or ethnic group.
Why was the law created?
It
will be immediately obvious to many that several offences included in the list above are already criminalised. Rape, assault, criminal damage, threats to
hurt or kill are perhaps the most obvious, having specific offences to
themselves. The other behaviours included are less obvious as to their
pre-existing criminality, though in order to have a ‘serious effect’ on the
victim, as per s.76(1)(c), controlling or coercive behaviour is defined as
fearing the use of violence on at least two occasions or they have been
caused serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on the
victim’s usual day-to-activities. The former strongly resembles that of the definition
in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, so evidently some of the less
apparent criminal behaviours may be caught by other legislation.
Year
on year, prosecutions for offences related to violence against women, including
domestic abuse, have seen a dramatic increase. For rape, sexual abuse and
domestic abuse, prosecutions have rose by a record 18.3% from the previous
year, with convictions rising by 16.9%. Consequently, a £3m initiative to
tackle violence against women and girls was launched by the Home Office in
2016. The Government’s 2014 consultation on domestic abuse suggested that the
Police have responded inadequately to non-violent domestic abuse, and that
criminalising coercive and controlling behaviour would encourage victims to
report it and help them identify behaviour that is wrong.[4]
The offence created in s.76 was intended to ‘close the gap’[5]
according the Home Secretary, where law covering harassment and stalking does
not cover controlling or coercive behaviour.
Why could the numbers be so small?
First,
the most obvious explanation might be that as the majority of behaviour caught
by s.76 is already covered extensively by existing legislation, the remaining
cases where prosecution is appropriate may be relatively small. Nick Dent of
Kingsley Napley suggests the low number of prosecutions may even suggest that
the act is being prosecuted in proportion to the gap it intended to close.[6]
Whilst the Act includes a broad range of criminal offences, it would be logical
for the CPS to use the existing, established offences, which have been
developed with ample case law, rather than s.76. This would provide a more
certain prosecuting decision, improve the chances of conviction.
Second,
even where the offence is appropriate, prosecutors may be less willing to use
the offence because it is new and comes with an inherent uncertainty. Related
to the point above, as the offence is just 8 months old, both the police and
the CPS will be less clear as to the ambit of the offence, and how it should be
applied. This is not solely related to the offence’s age, but also to what it
criminalises.
Violent
behaviour in domestic abuse, for example, is likely to be far clearer to an
investigation, with a higher likelihood of forensics and visual evidence being
available. Behaviours which are criminalised under s.76, even with the
guidance, are far more difficult to assess in terms of their criminality. The
effect of a punch will inevitably be clearer than the effect of several
statements contributing to psychological harm. In addition, such behaviour is perhaps more likely to encounter evidential
difficulties, as a case is likely to rely solely on witness testimony, rather
than photographs of injuries in a case of violence behaviour. This is not a
criticism of the offence itself, but may be an explanation as to why a
small number of prosecutions are brought.
Third,
prosecutions in cases of domestic violence and under s.76 will heavily rely on
the willingness of the victim to assist the prosecution. Even where a case of
domestic abuse that involves violence could be brought without the assistance
of the complainant, using, for example, photographs of injuries, it would still
be highly unlikely to succeed without the evidence of the victim themselves.
With a case brought under s.76, a prosecution without the evidence of the
complainant would be almost impossible, as the court would not be able to hear
a first hand account of what effect the behaviour had on them.
Due
to domestic abuse cases involving a relationship of two people, complainants
typically withdraw their support for a prosecution case before a trial has even
begun. This may be due to a myriad of reasons, such as an imbalanced power
dynamic between the defendant and complainant or a change in the relationship’s
circumstances. In addition, where such behaviour has taken place, a complainant
may simply not have the courage to assist a prosecution and provide a fair
trial. Whilst an unfortunate reality, a complainant’s love for a defendant,
despite the abuse they suffer, will inevitably be a reason for a withdrawal of
support for a prosecution case. This factor may have also contributed to what
appears to be a small number of prosecutions under s.76.
Is it bad law?
It
has been suggested that s.76 encroaches too heavily on intimate relationships
in criminalising controlling and coercive behaviour. The Secret Barrister argues
that s.76 suffers from enormous difficulties of enforcement, but that it is
also too paternalistic, and wrongly criminalises relationships that are unhealthy.
He states people in a liberal society ‘must be free to pursue and endure’
relationships that are toxic, ‘as long as it is their choice’.[7]
He continues by saying that state should not criminalise deviations from an
ideal of a perfect relationship, and that whilst some controlling and coercive
relationships result in violence, many others do not.
Surprisingly, concern has been shared by
the CEO of Refuge, Sandra Horley, who argued that the criminalisation of
coercive behaviour could have ‘unintended consequences’,[8]
referring to the wide ranging behaviours s.76 could potentially criminalise.
She furthers her argument to state that the existing criminal legislation on
domestic abuse is not being enforced properly, and that creating a new offence
would not solve that. Clearly, s.76 requires police to go further in their
investigations, as what is caught by the new offence will not be as apparent as
abuse involving violence. With deep cuts to the police force and to the criminal
justice system, the difficulty of enforcing s.76 is compounded further.
There
has, however, been support for s.76, calling it ‘an undoubtedly important step’
in recognising controlling and coercive behaviour as a form of abuse.[9]
Dr Weare of Lancaster University,
though supportive of the legislation, criticises the inadequacy of resources that are available to
domestic abuse victims, particularly for women who are in need of legal aid in
family law and civil remedies, but require evidence of domestic abuse to obtain
it. Evidence of coercive or controlling behaviour would be inherently more
difficult to obtain than abuse which involves violence. Whilst these criticisms
do not go directly to s.76, despite the government prioritising the issue, the
general lack of funding to tackle domestic violence seems to be obscured
by new legislation rather than increasing an allocation of resources.
Despite
there being only 62 prosecutions, it does not necessarily follow that a law
which has produced a small number is necessarily an inadequate one, or that is
improperly resourced. Whilst many would attribute success to a law which
garners a large number of prosecutions, this only proves that many are breaking
that law, and not, as perhaps in reality many might hope, that it is acting as
a deterrent. The vagueness and vastly wide ambit of s.76 perhaps does
relatively little in providing a certainty as to what people should not be
doing in an intimate relationship. Thus, s.76’s significance as a deterrent is
arguably very limited.
Conclusion
The
relatively low number of prosecutions may be partially explained by the narrow
type of behaviour it criminalises and the difficulty of establishing certainty
with a new offence may lead prosecutors to favour existing legislation which
could provide a higher chance of conviction. The vagueness of what behaviour
the act criminalises presents issues, increasing the uncertainty, possibly
resulting in reluctance to use s.76. Problems intrinsic to all domestic abuse
cases will be just as prevalent in prosecutions under s.76 as they are in domestic abuse cases involving violence. Securing the continued and unwavering support of the complainant is crucial, yet
tremendously difficult.
Whilst
it is difficult to determine whether s.76 is inappropriate, its enforceability
is its Achilles heel. A largely inadequate enforcement of the existing
legislation relating to both criminal and civil law is highly unlikely to be
resolved with further legislation, which would require significant increases to
the robustness of the police force. At a time when the police force and
criminal justice system as a whole is suffering from a severe lack of
resources, adequately prosecuting domestic abuse cases in addition to the
demands of s.76 is highly unrealistic. Though the numbers are expected to the
increase as prosecutors and police forces become more familiar with the offence
and the type of behaviour it criminalises, it is very unlikely that a
significant increase will be seen unless there are dramatic increases to the Ministry
of Justice’s budget.
[1]
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/31/police-failing-to-use-new-law-against-coercive-domestic-abuse
[2] S.76(10) Serious Crime
Act 2015
[3]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-guidance-framework-controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-in-an-intimate-or-family-relationship
[4] Home Office,
Strengthening the Law on Domestic Abuse, pg 9
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/344674/Strengthening_the_law_on_Domestic_Abuse_-_A_Consultation_WEB.PDF
[5] Home Office, Violence
Against Women and Girls: Written Statement
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2014-12-18/HCWS155/
[6]
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/criminal-law-blog/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-in-an-intimate-or-family-relationship-preparing-for-the-new-offence
[7]
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/09/01/the-criminal-law-has-no-business-interfering-in-bad-relationships/
[8]
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201415/jtselect/jtrights/106/10608.htm
[9]
https://www.sanctuarycriminaljustice.com/blog/the-need-for-more-than-an-offence-of-coercive-control-to-combat-51203014544