When was murdered, with her three children, by her estranged husband Rowan Baxter in February 2020, it triggered a strong debate about criminalising coercive control in Australia. Baxter had not previously been physically violent towards Hannah but had – checking where she was and who she was with, telling her what she could wear, and tracking what she did. Recognising that this behaviour was psychologically and emotionally abusive - and a forerunner to Hannah’s murder - catalysed calls to criminalise coercive control.
What is coercive control?
describes a repeated pattern of control and domination in a domestic relationship. It can include verbal, economic and psychological abuse, as well as sexual and physical violence.
This behaviour is used to maintain dominance over a partner, to restrict their freedom and autonomy. It can even continue or escalate after a couple separate, as the abuser desperately seeks to maintain control.
Coercive control is gendered – it is most often perpetrated by men against women and children. Although some behaviours might seem minor, when repeated over time as part of a pattern of abuse, the effects can be serious. In fact, victims describe the psychological and emotional abuse that occurs in domestic and family violence as worse than all but the most extreme physical violence.
As happened with Hannah Clarke, coercive control has also been linked to most women who are killed by their partners or ex-partners have previously been victims of coercive control by these men. A history of coercive control is an even more important predictor of intimate partner homicide than a past history of physical violence in the relationship.
What behaviours come under 'coercive control'?
- Isolating the victim from their friends and family
- Taking control of financial resources and restricting access to bank accounts, property and other financial information
- Making threats against the victim, children or even a beloved family pet
- Keeping the victim under surveillance
- Controlling the victim by micromanaging her everyday life – telling her who she can talk with, where she can go, what clothes she should wear, whether she can wear makeup
- Humiliating and degrading the victim – constantly insulting her, telling her she is fat or ugly, calling her derogatory names
- Physically and sexually abusing the victim
Laws criminalising ‘coercive or controlling behaviour’ were passed in England and Wales in late 2015. Similar laws came into effect in 2019 in Northern Ireland; as well as - which also has a related offence prohibiting ‘domestic abuse’. These laws criminalise a pattern (‘course of conduct’) of domination and intimidation towards a partner that can include psychological, emotional and financial abuse, and isolating the victim. Physical and sexual violence can also occur but are not necessary for the offence to be established.
These forms of abuse have been the under new laws in the . is the only jurisdiction in Australia where a similar can take place.
Since 2005, Tasmania has had an emotional abuse offence. This crime is committed when a person engages in behaviour towards their spouse or partner that they know, or ought to know, "is likely to have the effect of unreasonably controlling or intimidating, or causing mental harm, apprehension or fear" to that person. Although this offence has been in effect for longer than the laws in the UK, there have been relatively few prosecutions of this offence in Tasmania.
UK's coercive control laws
The case is an example of how the offence of coercive behaviour is used in England. In the six years Natalie was in a relationship, her partner would telephone her 30 to 40 times a day, threaten to kill her, throw her belongings out of their house and smash their furniture. He blamed her for everything, including his own abusive behaviour (’I act like this because it’s your fault’). Natalie was scared of him and his explosive temper. She experienced severe panic and anxiety attacks. Her partner’s gaslighting eventually caused her to doubt her own sanity. She what happened to her: "It’s such a drip effect, each event gets a bit worse and a bit worse…And then someone has control over you.”
Natalie eventually left her husband and contacted police in Essex. He was charged with coercive or controlling behaviour, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in prison.
Proving you are a victim of coercive control
Coercive control laws are challenging because they require a different type of criminal justice response than most crimes. They require that the offender has repeatedly engaged in the abusive behaviour and the harm suffered by the victim can be non-physical. By contrast, most crimes simply focus on a single incident of wrongful behaviour and have a tangible harm (such as physical injury to the victim or financial loss).
So, a woman who is physically assaulted will typically have bruising, broken bones or other tangible injuries as evidence that the abuse occurred. But what about victims of coercive control?
The types of that can be used to prove the psychological, emotional and financial consequences of being a victim of coercive control are diverse. A victim’s account to police of what happened is the starting point. Other evidence can include copies of text messages and emails, voicemails, CCTV and other recordings of the perpetrator, diaries kept by the victim, phone records, tapes or transcripts of calls made to emergency services, bank records (where there has been financial abuse) and evidence of isolation.
Evidence from family, friends and neighbours can also be used. In England, the organisation also notes that men who abusively control women often "make or threaten to make false allegations about their victims to the police, social services and immigration authorities or to friends and family" and advises women to report these threats to police as evidence of the coercive control.
Could the new laws facilitate false claims of abuse?
Some critics are concerned that these new laws could facilitate spurious claims of abuse against husbands. For example, there have been allegations that husbands could be prosecuted for withdrawing money from a joint bank account or driving the family car without permission. These criticisms fail to recognise that the new laws typically require that an offender must have known, or should have known, that his behaviour would cause harm to the victim and that any abusive behaviour must be repeated (a single event is not sufficient).
Additionally, the new laws contain a requirement of unreasonableness; that is, the behaviour of the offender must be unreasonable. These requirements mean that only conduct that is unreasonable, repeatedly abusive and actually harmful (or likely to be harmful) to the victim will be prosecuted.
A different concern is that these new laws will facilitate the misidentification of women who are victims as perpetrators of abuse, especially when the women are from an Indigenous, refugee or migrant background. This concern is partly based on the fact that women who act to protect themselves are sometimes mistakenly perceived by police as the aggressor under current law.
Some critics believe that this would also happen under a coercive control law. But it hasn’t happened with vulnerable women in England under the new law. It may actually be less likely to occur with a coercive control offence in Australia when compared with existing laws because the new offence would require police to look beyond just the immediate incident and consider a pattern of abuse. This broader focus may help to identify the true aggressor.
Will criminalising coercive control be effective?
Many current definitions of domestic abuse in Australia already include coercive behaviour. But criminalising this coercive behaviour is a radical and challenging step. Making coercive control unlawful would give police a broader and direct legal basis on which to intervene to protect victims. It would empower them to charge offenders who engage in a range of abusive behaviours, not just those who commit physical assaults.
Criminalising coercive control would mean that victims would not be expected to just ‘put up’ with psychological and economic abuse or rely on inadequate civil legal remedies, such as intervention orders. Instead, a new offence would give victims the option of going to the police and seeking assistance. Creating a criminal offence also would recognise that coercive control actually of victims. Human rights organisations are increasingly recognising psychological abuse as a severe form of domestic violence and creating a new criminal offence gives recognition to this. Criminalising coercive control will send a clear message to the community about what the behaviour involves and why it is unacceptable.
Has criminalising coercive control worked in other countries?
Introducing a new law is not sufficient; police, prosecutors, frontline workers and the entire community must be made aware of the new law and the protection it offers victims. In England, the new law was introduced without adequate education and training being provided to police, and uptake has been slow. A similar process happened in Tasmania. By contrast, extensive education and training was provided before the new law of ‘domestic abuse’ came into effect in Scotland and the new law has had a broader, and more immediate, So, passing a new law must be part of a bigger package of reforms.
More broadly, victims of domestic abuse still report being disbelieved by police and re-traumatised through their experiences with the criminal justice system. And proper resourcing is a continuing issue. So, to be effective a new law criminalising non-physical domestic violence must be introduced as part of a ‘whole of government’ response to family violence.
Victims of domestic abuse still report being disbelieved by police and re-traumatised through their experiences with the criminal justice system.
What is happening in Australia?
Some have expressed their support for the introduction of a new offence and bills have already been introduced in some state parliaments. A parliamentary inquiry in has begun to investigate whether a coercive control offence should be introduced. has established a taskforce to consider coercive control legislation and the governments of the and are investigating the issue. Thus, several states are considering whether to criminalise coercive control and some governments have already had to increase community awareness that psychological abuse is a form of family violence.
Professor Marilyn McMahon is Deputy Dean of the Law School at Victoria’s Deakin University. She is also the co-editor of
If you or someone you know is experiencing family violence or sexual assault phone 1800RESPECT/ 1800 737 732 or visit . For counselling, advice and support for men who have anger, relationship or parenting issues, call the Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491 or visit .
The new SBS original thriller series premieres with a double episode on Thursday 11 May at 8.30pm on SBS and . Episodes three and four will premiere on SBS on Thursday 18 May at 8.30pm. All four episodes will be available to stream from Thursday 11 May. To stream for free on SBS On Demand all you need to do is . If you’d like to be notified when episodes drop, download the SBS On Demand app on your device/s and log into your account, add Safe Home to , and so we can notify you when episodes land at SBS On Demand for you to stream.
