Jenny Wiltshire in Law Society Gazette on ten years of controlling or coercive behaviour

Head of Serious and General Crime Jenny Wiltshire has written an article for the Law Society Gazette reflecting on ten years of the criminal offence of controlling or coercive behaviour.

In December last year, to mark a decade since the offence came into force, the CPS revealed that it brought 4,995 controlling or coercive behaviour charges in 2024; up from 198 in 2016.

But Jenny writes that her “experience of these cases is that they are generally harder for the prosecution to prove than I suspect the law’s original drafters envisioned.“

She explains: “A common problem is an allegation made in the final throes of a toxic relationship. A suspect may argue that both parties acted equally badly, and that there was no substantial adverse effect on the other’s usual day-to-day activities (a key element of the “serious distress” offence).

“This common scenario can prove challenging for the police to properly investigate. While a charge can only cover the ten years since the law came into force, the alleged behaviour may have a history which goes back further.“

Jenny goes on to explain that “the police and CPS often do not have sufficient resources to consider all this evidence properly. I have seen trial dates pushed back due to the prosecution’s failure to obtain and review all reasonable lines of enquiry including digital and counselling records“.

She points to ONS data suggesting 10% of controlling or coercive behaviour allegations result in charge, and says that while conviction rate data is not currently publicly-available, she suspects it is low.

She writes: “I wonder whether a civil order, such as a non-molestation order or Domestic Violence Protection Order may be a swifter way of enabling some victims of this behaviour to get the protection they need while allowing them to move on with their lives.

“The Government may also consider extending the current six-month time limit for domestic stalking offences under Section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Doing this would remove the hurdle of having to prove both “serious distress” and a “substantial adverse effect on a person’s day-to-day activities”.

Jenny’s full article is in the Law Society Gazette