header-logo header-logo

28 January 2022 / David Burrows
Issue: 7964 / Categories: Features , Family , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Coercive behaviour in family proceedings

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll