Published August 29, 2026
Domestic abuse has historically been prosecuted as a series of discrete physical acts, an approach that, as multiple scholars have observed, leaves much of the harm invisible to the legal system. The dynamic of control that constitutes the crux of abuse is characterized by behaviors designed to dominate, degrade, and discipline, including emotional and financial abuse, isolation, rulemaking, and surveillance. These physically nonviolent forms of abuse are collectively referred to as “coercive control.” Despite this evidence, the criminal legal system has focused its efforts on discrete incidents or encounters, most commonly physical assaults. For years, domestic violence scholars and activists have advocated for criminalization of coercive control to resolve what they describe as a fundamental mismatch between the criminal system’s tools and the individualized nature of domestic violence.
The stakes of this debate are high. The NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team found that in 97% of intimate partner domestic violence homicide cases, the victim had experienced coercive and controlling behaviours before being killed. Research published in Violence Against Women by Evan Stark and Marianne Hester frames coercive control as distinct from any single act of violence. Stark and Hester argue that coercive control “is not a type of violence” but rather an ongoing pattern of domination, a distinction that carries significant consequences for how the burden of proof operates in criminal prosecution, which, in the view of Carlton Research, is in and of itself is violence. Psychological violence.
The Domestic Abuse Prosecution Standard and Its Limits
In most common law jurisdictions, criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court must be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” that the violence occurred, a far higher threshold than in civil proceedings. Where coercive control cannot be proven to that standard, prosecution is unsuccessful. This standard was designed for offenses that produce discrete, observable evidence: physical injuries, property damage, or identifiable threats. Coercive control, by contrast, frequently manifests through conduct that may appear harmless in isolation.
Many coercively controlling situations lack physical evidence to corroborate the violence, thus heightening the role of the survivor in providing evidence. As the Canadian Women’s Foundation noted in a 2023 policy brief, there are ongoing concerns regarding the challenges of successfully prosecuting and meeting the standard of proof required for offences like criminal harassment, and that concern about meeting the standard of proof and placing a heightened evidentiary burden on survivors exists equally with respect to a potential offence of coercive control. This is especially burdensome for pro per litigants.
The evidentiary difficulty is compounded by the nature of the conduct. Since coercive control often involves psychological and emotional abuse rather than physical evidence, it can be difficult to provide concrete proof, especially for victims already struggling with the impact of coercive control. Victims may struggle to gather evidence that demonstrates a pattern of controlling behavior, and abusers frequently manipulate situations to appear innocent. The lack of tangible evidence makes it challenging for victims to convince authorities and courts of their abuse.
How Jurisdictions Have Structured the Criminalization of Coercive Control
Different jurisdictions have taken markedly different approaches to defining and structuring the offence, each carrying distinct implications for the burden of proof.
Under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 in England and Wales, an offence is committed where a person repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person that is controlling or coercive, the parties are personally connected, the behaviour has a serious effect on the victim, and the defendant knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance emphasizes that in many cases the conduct might seem innocent, especially if considered in isolation, and the victim may not be aware of abusive behaviour. The consideration of the cumulative impact and the pattern of behaviour within the context of the relationship is crucial.
Scotland adopted a different model through the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which focuses on a “course of conduct” rather than isolated incidents. Under the Scottish model, victims do not need to provide proof of harm, and the maximum penalty is 14 years. Published Scottish Government data indicates that convictions for a main charge under the Act have risen every year, from 212 in 2019-20 to 897 in 2023-24, corresponding to prosecution numbers of 252 to 1,039 over the same period, with conviction rates ranging from 84% to 91%.
In New South Wales, Australia, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022 took effect on 1 July 2024. Under that law, coercive control is a criminal offence when a person uses abusive behaviours towards a current or former intimate partner with the intention to coerce or control them. The criminal offence captures repeated patterns of physical or non-physical abuse used to hurt, scare, intimidate, threaten or control someone.
In the United States, the approach has leaned more toward civil law integration than standalone criminal offences. As of April 2026, US states with enacted coercive control legislation include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington. California’s framework, for instance, operates primarily through family court. The petitioner must prove coercive control by a preponderance of the evidence, the same standard that applies to all domestic violence restraining order proceedings, meaning the court must find it “more likely than not” that the alleged conduct occurred.
The Evidentiary Shift and Its Critiques
The move from incident-based prosecution to pattern-based prosecution changes what the state must prove and how. Criminalizing coercive control changes how intimate partner violence is prosecuted by acknowledging the overall pattern of abuse, not just isolated incidents. Rather than proving a single assault, prosecutors must assemble criminalization evidence showing a sustained course of behaviour and its cumulative effect.
This shift has attracted scholarly criticism from multiple directions. In the UC Davis Law Review, Courtney K. Cross argues that criminalizing coercive control will do far more harm than good. Analyzing the domestic violence movement’s prior attempt to use criminal law to address coercive behavior, through the adoption of mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies, underscores how the most vulnerable survivors and their families will bear the brunt of these new criminal laws. As with mandatory policies, coercive control criminal laws will be coopted by abusive partners and used against survivors.
In the broader criminological literature, debate about these new laws has centered on their timing, the relative wisdom of using “more law” to manage partner abuse, and the prospect that they will be enforced. Critics have worried that even the little progress made in policing the most common partner assaults will be lost if the emphasis shifts from incidents to “patterns” or from physical injury to such intangibles as “control” and “subordination.”
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) in Canada stated in its 2023 position paper that in the current context it does not support criminalizing coercive control, arguing that focusing on the criminal law as the solution to intimate partner violence ignores its many documented failings and harms. LEAF urges governments to instead take a proactive approach in focusing on the prevention of intimate partner violence and to ensure that alternative avenues to justice and safety are made available to survivors.
Enduring Questions
The fundamental tension in the burden of proof for coercive control remains unresolved across jurisdictions. The beyond-reasonable-doubt standard requires clear, admissible evidence of a sustained pattern, yet the conduct in question is often deliberately hidden, contextual, and ambiguous to outsiders. The gap between legislation existing and legislation being effectively enforced remains significant in every jurisdiction. Police training, prosecutorial understanding, and judicial familiarity with coercive control vary enormously.
Whether legislatures adopt criminal offences, civil mechanisms, or hybrid approaches, the evidence challenge persists. Criminal prosecution is most viable where legislation specifically criminalizes coercive control and where there is a substantial and well-organized body of evidence demonstrating the pattern over time. The Scottish conviction data suggests that high conviction rates are achievable under a carefully structured statute, but long-term outcome research, including data on recidivism, survivor safety, and unintended consequences, is still in early stages.
This article is educational content produced by Carlton Research. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers seeking guidance on specific legal matters should consult qualified legal professionals. For further information, the National Domestic Violence Hotline (U.S.), Refuge (England), and 1800RESPECT (Australia) provide confidential support and referrals.
Sources
- Serious Crime Act 2015, Section 76, legislation.gov.uk
- CPS Prosecution Guidance: Controlling or Coercive Behaviour, Crown Prosecution Service
- Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018: Statistics Recorded by the Police in Scotland 2024-25, Scottish Government (June 2026)
- Courtney K. Cross, “Coercive Control and the Limits of Criminal Law,” 56 UC Davis Law Review 195 (2022)
- Evan Stark and Marianne Hester, “Coercive Control: Update and Review,” Violence Against Women (2019)
- LEAF Position Paper on Coercive Control (October 2023)
- Coercive Control and the Law, NSW Government
Disclaimer
Coercive control law moves fast. Jurisdictions are actively criminalizing it, amending definitions, and changing the scope of litigation. This article is current as of its date of publication and may not reflect subsequent changes. It is provided for general educational purposes and is not legal advice.