header-logo header-logo

Coercive behaviour in family proceedings

28 January 2022 / David Burrows
Issue: 7964 / Categories: Features , Family , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Spotlight on domestic abuse cases: David Burrows examines proof of controlling & coercive behaviour
  • How parties in family proceedings are required to plead proof of domestic abuse, and how controlling and coercive behaviour is proved and dealt with.
  • The meaning of ‘controlling and coercive behaviour’ in legal cases, and how that meaning is translated into practical and procedural outcomes.

In any litigation, civil or criminal, the object of the applicant (or prosecution) is to obtain an order from the court (or a conviction) based on the evidence which applies. The court must consider all relevant facts and make findings on those facts which are in issue between the parties. It must apply the law to the facts as found or as agreed, and come to a decision as to whether the facts justify the order sought by the applicant/claimant.

This article looks at the way in which family courts procedurally require parties to set out (‘plead’) proof of domestic abuse in an individual case; and in particular how controlling and coercive

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll