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

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll