Canada Is Treating Coercive Control as a Pattern — Are UK Family Courts Doing Enough?

August 8, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, 6. Tools Templates Research & Cases, Children and Family Justice, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

Canada is taking a notably joined-up approach to coercive control, recognising it not just as a criminal justice issue but as a pattern of behaviour with consequences across family law, civil liability and the welfare of children. That matters because coercive control is rarely understood properly when the evidence is broken into isolated incidents. This article looks at Canada’s developing three-layer framework, compares it with the law and procedure in England and Wales, and asks whether our family courts are consistently equipped to identify the pattern, power imbalance and post-separation harm that coercive control can create.

JSH Law | Family Justice, Domestic Abuse & Coercive Control

“`

Canada’s New Approach to Coercive Control: What England and Wales Can Learn From a Three-Layer Response to Family Violence

Canada is building something increasingly significant around coercive control: recognition in family law, a new civil cause of action for intimate partner violence, and now a specific criminal offence. The important question for England and Wales is not simply whether our law contains similar words. It is whether our family justice system is consistently capable of recognising the pattern those words are supposed to describe.

“`

In summary

“`

Canada has not simply created a new “tier” of family violence. What is emerging is a broader legal architecture in which coercive control is recognised across family law, civil law and criminal law.

That matters because coercive control is rarely understood properly by examining isolated incidents. It is about patterns, power, autonomy, fear, restriction and the cumulative effect of behaviour over time — including behaviour which continues after separation and through children or legal proceedings.

“`

An important clarification

“`

Social-media discussion has sometimes described the Canadian development as a new “tier” of family violence. That is not quite the legal position. The more important development is that coercive control is increasingly being recognised across several different areas of Canadian law, with family, civil and criminal law all moving towards an understanding of domestic abuse as a cumulative pattern rather than simply a collection of isolated incidents.

“`

What Canada actually means by “family violence”
Why coercive control has been part of Canadian federal family law since 2021
How children are recognised as victims of family violence
The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2026 decision in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia
Canada’s new criminal offence of coercive control
Why the offence is not yet operational
How the Canadian framework compares with England and Wales
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021, PD12J and Re H-N
Why incident-by-incident analysis can fail victims and children
Post-separation abuse and the use of children as instruments of control
What family courts in England and Wales could learn from Canada
Practical implications for litigants in person

“`

This is not simply a new criminal offence

The most interesting thing about what is happening in Canada is not one statute.

It is the direction of travel.

Canadian law is increasingly recognising coercive control in three distinct but connected ways.

1. Family law: coercive and controlling behaviour is expressly incorporated within the federal Divorce Act definition of family violence and the best-interests analysis.

“`

2. Civil law: in May 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised a new tort of intimate partner violence in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, addressing the distinctive harm caused by coercive control.

3. Criminal law: the Protecting Victims Act, which received Royal Assent on 18 June 2026, creates a specific Criminal Code offence concerning coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner.

“`

That matters because coercive control has always been difficult for legal systems built around identifying discrete events.

A punch is an event.

A threat is an event.

A particular abusive message is an event.

Coercive control is often something different.

It may consist of hundreds of individually explainable acts which, when viewed together, establish an architecture of domination: surveillance, isolation, intimidation, financial restriction, manipulation of children, threats, humiliation, regulation of everyday life, interference with relationships, litigation pressure and the systematic erosion of another person’s autonomy.

Look at only one incident and the abuse may appear insignificant.

Look at the pattern and the case may look completely different.

Canada has recognised coercive control in family law since 2021

Canada did not suddenly discover coercive control in 2026.

Important amendments to the federal Divorce Act came into force on 1 March 2021.

The Act defines “family violence” broadly. Crucially, the definition is not restricted to behaviour which constitutes a criminal offence.

It includes violent or threatening behaviour, conduct causing fear for someone’s safety and a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

It can include:

physical abuse;
sexual abuse;
threats to kill or cause bodily harm;
harassment and stalking;
psychological abuse;
financial abuse;
failure to provide necessities;
threats against animals or property; and
harm to animals or damage to property.

The definition is particularly important for children because it expressly includes a child’s direct or indirect exposure to family violence.

That distinction matters

“`

A family court is not conducting a criminal prosecution. The question is not simply whether conduct could be proved beyond reasonable doubt as a criminal offence. The court is concerned with the child’s welfare, risk and the reality of family functioning. Canada expressly puts that distinction into its federal family-law framework.

“`

Children do not need to be physically assaulted to be affected by abuse

This is an area where both Canadian law and the law of England and Wales have moved significantly.

A child can be harmed by domestic abuse even where the abusive parent never lays a hand on the child.

Children can live inside the consequences of coercive control.

They may watch one parent modify everything they say and do to avoid another parent’s reaction.

They may understand which subjects cannot safely be discussed.

They may become messengers.

They may be questioned after spending time with the other parent.

Their telephone contact may be monitored.

Their relationships with grandparents, siblings or the other side of their family may become contested territory.

They may learn that affection itself carries consequences.

They may therefore experience the abusive system even when they are not its original target.

Canada’s Divorce Act expressly requires courts examining family violence to consider whether a child was directly or indirectly exposed to it and the resulting physical, emotional or psychological harm or risk of harm.

This is not a peripheral issue. It is part of the best-interests assessment.

Canada asks courts to identify the pattern

Section 16 of the Canadian Divorce Act requires courts dealing with family violence to consider a number of factors, including:

the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence;
when it occurred;
whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour;
whether the violence was directed at the child;
whether the child was directly or indirectly exposed to it;
physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm;
whether the safety of the child or another family member has been compromised;
whether the behaviour caused fear for safety; and
what steps, if any, the person responsible has taken to prevent further violence and improve their parenting.

Justice Canada’s explanatory material goes further.

It recognises that coercive and controlling family violence is cumulative.

It also recognises something practitioners dealing with post-separation abuse will immediately understand: children and parenting arrangements themselves may be used as instruments of continued control.

Justice Canada gives examples including refusing to comply with parenting orders or threatening the former partner with the loss of parenting time.

The critical question is often not “What happened on Tuesday?” It is “What system of behaviour existed before, during and after Tuesday — and what did that system do to the adults and children living inside it?”

Then came Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

On 15 May 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a major judgment in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia.

The case concerned whether Canadian law should recognise a civil claim capable of addressing the distinctive harm caused by intimate partner violence.

The Court concluded that existing torts did not fully capture that harm and recognised a new tort of intimate partner violence.

This is important because traditional civil claims may identify particular wrongs — such as assault or intentional infliction of emotional distress — while still missing what coercive control does as a whole.

The Supreme Court described intimate partner violence in terms of coercive and controlling conduct capable of undermining a person’s dignity, autonomy and equality.

It is not limited to physical violence.

Relevant behaviour may include:

isolation;
humiliation;
surveillance;
financial control;
sexual coercion;
intimidation; and
other behaviour which, understood contextually, amounts to coercive control.

The significance is difficult to overstate.

The law is recognising that there can be a distinct injury in stripping another person of meaningful autonomy over time.

That injury cannot always be understood by separating the relationship into a spreadsheet of incidents.

The new Canadian criminal offence

Canada then took another major step.

The Protecting Victims Act, formerly Bill C-16, received Royal Assent on 18 June 2026.

Among a wider package of criminal justice reforms, the legislation creates a specific offence aimed at a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner.

The legislation is intended to capture combinations or repeated instances of conduct including violence, sexual coercion and other controlling behaviour which would reasonably be expected to cause an intimate partner to believe that their physical or psychological safety is threatened.

The statutory scheme identifies areas of a victim’s life which coercive behaviour may attempt to control, including:

social interactions;
communications;
childcare decisions;
employment;
education;
finances;
property;
physical appearance;
access to healthcare or medication;
expression of opinions; and
participation in linguistic or cultural communities.

Threats of suicide or self-harm used as part of a coercive pattern may also fall within the framework where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The new offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on indictment.

But there is an important caveat: it is not yet operational

Do not miss this

“`

Bill C-16 became law on 18 June 2026, but Justice Canada states that the coercive-control provisions will come into force no later than two years after Royal Assent.

They are therefore enacted, but at the time of writing in August 2026 they are not yet an operational criminal offence.

“`

The reason given for the delayed commencement is particularly telling.

Canada wants time for training and implementation.

That is a lesson in itself.

Coercive control legislation can fail if police, lawyers, social workers, prosecutors, judges and safeguarding professionals continue to search only for incidents.

You cannot legislate for patterns of abuse and then train professionals to look exclusively for episodes.

Nor can a legal system sensibly say that coercive control is cumulative and contextual while forcing victims to reduce years of behaviour to a small number of decontextualised allegations.

Canada has also connected coercive control with femicide

The 2026 reforms go further again.

Canada’s new legislation changes the treatment of certain murders occurring in circumstances involving coercive control, hate, sexual violence or exploitation and expressly uses the term femicide where the victim is female.

That is significant because coercive control is not merely being treated as unpleasant relationship behaviour.

It is being recognised within a risk continuum.

This reflects something domestic-abuse specialists have argued for years: coercive control is relevant not only because of the psychological damage it causes but because patterns of domination, stalking, threats, possessiveness and escalating post-separation behaviour can also be important indicators of serious risk.

Separation does not necessarily end coercive control.

In some cases, it changes its form.

So how does England and Wales compare?

England and Wales should not be presented as legally backward on coercive control.

We already have substantial legislation.

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 subsequently broadened the framework, including removing the previous requirement that perpetrator and victim be living together for the coercive-control offence to apply.

That was crucial for recognising post-separation abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Act also provides a broad statutory definition of domestic abuse encompassing:

physical or sexual abuse;
violent or threatening behaviour;
controlling or coercive behaviour;
economic abuse; and
psychological, emotional or other abuse.

Importantly, section 3 recognises children as victims of domestic abuse where they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse between connected adults and are related to them.

So England and Wales already possess many of the building blocks.

The difficulty is often not whether the law recognises coercive control.

The difficulty is how reliably the family justice system identifies, evidences and responds to it.

PD12J is stronger than many litigants realise

Practice Direction 12J governs child-arrangements proceedings where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or there is other reason to believe that domestic abuse has occurred.

It expressly recognises controlling and coercive behaviour.

It requires courts to consider domestic abuse at every stage of proceedings and, where relevant, identify factual and welfare issues and ensure that child arrangements do not expose a child or parent to further harm.

Where abuse is established, the court may need to consider its effect on:

the child;
the child’s relationship with each parent;
the parent with whom the child lives;
future arrangements;
the likelihood of future abusive behaviour; and
each parent’s capacity to understand the effect of the abuse.

PD12J also directs attention to whether a parent is genuinely promoting the child’s welfare or using the proceedings to continue domestic abuse against the other parent.

That provision should be read carefully.

Because post-separation coercive control can migrate directly into family proceedings.

The family court itself can become part of the machinery of control

Litigation is not inherently abusive.

Parents must be able to bring genuine welfare disputes before a court.

But proceedings can be weaponised.

That may happen through repeated applications, unnecessary communications, relentless allegations, financially exhausting procedural activity, demands for information, manipulation of handovers, monitoring through children or continued attempts to exercise control over the other parent’s daily life.

Parliament expressly recognised this risk when reforming section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.

PD12J and Practice Direction 12Q acknowledge that further applications may themselves form part of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour.

The court can therefore restrict further Children Act applications without permission where the statutory criteria are met.

That is a safeguarding power, not simply a case-management convenience.

Re H-N: stop looking at abuse through a keyhole

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 remains central to understanding coercive control in private children proceedings.

One of its most important implications is that the court must not lose the overall evidential picture by treating allegations as completely disconnected events.

Coercive control is, by definition, about pattern and context.

A traditional schedule of allegations may sometimes assist in identifying disputed facts.

But it can also become a poor analytical tool where the allegation is fundamentally that numerous behaviours worked together to establish domination, fear, dependency or control.

This concern has now been reinforced procedurally.

Amendments to PD12J taking effect from 5 January 2026 expressly moved away from an overly rigid focus on “Scott Schedules” and emphasised a holistic assessment of domestic-abuse allegations, including patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour.

This is a significant procedural development

“`

A victim should not be forced to prove the architecture of coercive control by pretending it is merely a collection of unrelated bricks.

“`

The real comparison: Canada has made the pattern unusually explicit

England and Wales recognise coercive control.

Canada recognises coercive control.

The difference is therefore more subtle than “Canada has it and we do not”.

The interesting feature of the Canadian approach is the degree to which the same underlying concept is becoming visible across multiple legal domains.

“`

Issue	Canada	England & Wales
Family-law recognition	Family violence under the Divorce Act expressly includes patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour.	Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and PD12J expressly recognise controlling and coercive behaviour.
Children	Direct or indirect exposure to family violence is expressly recognised.	Children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse can themselves be statutory victims.
Criminal coercive-control offence	Enacted in 2026; commencement delayed for training and implementation.	Section 76 Serious Crime Act 2015, subsequently extended to post-separation conduct.
Civil damages	Supreme Court recognised a distinct tort of intimate partner violence in 2026.	No directly equivalent standalone tort of coercive control.
Post-separation litigation abuse	Family-law guidance recognises use of parenting arrangements as a means of continued control.	PD12J and PD12Q allow the court to recognise proceedings or repeated applications as potential continuation of abuse.

“`

What England and Wales should learn from Canada

The lesson is not necessarily that Parliament needs another definition.

We have definitions.

We have statutory guidance.

We have PD12J.

We have appellate authority.

We have specific recognition of post-separation coercive control.

The harder question is whether the system consistently translates those principles into decision-making.

1. Pattern analysis needs to become routine

Courts should ask not merely whether individual allegations are proved but whether the evidence as a whole establishes a pattern and, if it does, what that pattern means for parenting capacity, risk and the child’s welfare.

2. Post-separation conduct matters

Separation should not create an artificial evidential cut-off.

Coercive control may continue through finances, digital surveillance, children, correspondence, handovers, schools, healthcare decisions or litigation.

3. Behaviour involving children needs to be analysed in context

A dispute about a child’s telephone, contact arrangements, passport, clothing, school information or relationships with relatives may be an ordinary parenting disagreement.

Or it may form part of a wider pattern.

Context decides which.

4. Professionals need pattern-recognition training

Canada’s decision to delay commencement of its new criminal offence while training is developed deserves attention.

Legislation cannot recognise coercive control effectively if professional practice repeatedly atomises it.

5. The child’s experience must not disappear behind the parental dispute

Family proceedings often speak about domestic abuse as though it concerns the adults and child arrangements as though they concern the child.

In reality, those questions may be inseparable.

A parent who controls, intimidates or terrorises the other parent may affect that parent’s capacity to care freely, the emotional environment in which the child develops and the child’s own understanding of relationships, loyalty, safety and autonomy.

6. Absence of prosecution is not absence of abuse

This point is fundamental.

Family courts work to a different evidential standard and perform a different function from criminal courts.

A person does not need to have been prosecuted or convicted before domestic abuse can be relevant to a welfare determination.

Canada makes this particularly explicit in its definition of family violence.

England and Wales should be equally clear in practice.

For litigants in person: evidence the pattern, not just the worst day

People experiencing coercive control often make one of two understandable mistakes when preparing family-court evidence.

Some describe everything.

The evidence becomes hundreds of pages long and the central pattern disappears.

Others describe only the most serious incidents.

The court then sees several apparently disconnected events and never understands the controlling system surrounding them.

The answer is not necessarily more evidence.

It is better organised evidence.

A useful coercive-control evidence structure may identify:

“`

The behaviour: what happened?
The repetition: how often did it happen?
The context: what else was happening around it?
The mechanism of control: what was the person trying to control or restrict?
The impact: what changed in the victim’s daily behaviour?
The child impact: what did the child see, hear, experience or change because of it?
Corroboration: what messages, records, witnesses, police material, school evidence, medical material or professional observations support it?
Post-separation continuation: did the behaviour stop, escalate or migrate into another form?
Current risk: why does the historical pattern matter to today’s child-arrangements decision?

“`

The objective is not to attach a sinister interpretation to every disagreement.

It is to make the evidence capable of answering the correct legal question.

Is this ordinary conflict?

Is it a handful of isolated incidents?

Or is there evidence of a sustained pattern in which one person has attempted to subordinate, frighten, isolate, monitor or control another?

Conflict and coercive control are not the same thing

This distinction matters enormously in private children proceedings.

“High conflict” can become a dangerously imprecise label.

Two adults arguing with each other is not necessarily the same phenomenon as one adult establishing a system of coercive control over another.

Calling both situations “conflict” risks flattening the power dynamics.

It may also create false symmetry.

A victim’s resistance, anxiety, protective behaviour or refusal to cooperate with unsafe arrangements should not automatically be treated as equivalent to the behaviour which produced that response.

Context matters.

Pattern matters.

Power matters.

And the child’s lived experience of that dynamic matters.

The deeper significance of Ahluwalia: autonomy itself can be harmed

Perhaps the most intellectually important aspect of the Canadian Supreme Court’s 2026 decision is its recognition that coercive control is capable of producing a distinctive injury to autonomy and equality.

That is useful far beyond damages litigation.

It helps explain why domestic abuse cannot always be measured by visible injury.

Imagine living for years while another person determines who you speak to, what money you can access, what you wear, where you go, when you sleep, what opinions you can safely express, how you parent, who you can contact and what consequences follow if you disobey.

There may be no single incident capable of explaining that experience.

The harm lies partly in the accumulated destruction of freedom.

That is precisely why coercive control requires contextual legal analysis.

And this matters profoundly in family court

Parenting requires more than an ability to feed a child, provide accommodation and get them to school.

It involves recognising that a child is an autonomous developing person with relationships, feelings, loyalties and emotional needs of their own.

Where a parent has engaged in coercive control, the family court may need to ask difficult welfare questions.

Can that parent distinguish the child’s needs from their own need for control?

Can they support the child’s relationship with the other parent?

Can they tolerate the child holding affection for people they dislike?

Can they respect appropriate privacy and boundaries?

Can they make joint decisions without using parental responsibility as leverage?

Do they understand the impact of the abuse?

Has the behaviour genuinely changed?

These are welfare questions, not punishment.

What I hope happens next in England and Wales

I do not think the answer is simply to keep passing legislation and assume the problem has therefore been solved.

The statutory architecture in England and Wales is already considerably stronger than many people realise.

What we need is consistent implementation.

I would like to see:

stronger and continuing judicial education on coercive control and post-separation abuse;
greater consistency between PD12J on paper and its application in individual cases;
proper use of holistic evidence rather than mechanically reducing abuse to isolated incidents;
clear analysis of the distinction between conflict and coercive control;
greater recognition of children as victims of the abusive environment, not merely witnesses to adult behaviour;
careful examination of the use of children, communication and litigation as potential mechanisms of post-separation control;
better coordination between criminal justice, family justice, safeguarding and domestic-abuse services;
greater emphasis on behaviour, impact and risk rather than stereotypes about how a “real victim” ought to present;
proper examination of whether a perpetrator demonstrates insight and sustained behavioural change; and
family-court decisions which explain transparently how domestic-abuse findings have affected the welfare analysis.

Most of that does not require inventing a new legal concept.

It requires using the concepts we already have properly.

The central point

“`

Coercive control cannot be understood by taking a relationship apart incident by incident and then asking whether each individual piece looks sufficiently serious. The legal system has to be capable of putting those pieces back together. Only then can it see the pattern, the power dynamic, the impact on autonomy and the consequences for children.

“`

Canada is worth watching

Canada has not solved domestic abuse.

No legislation can make that claim.

Nor should comparative legal analysis become a competition in which one jurisdiction is declared “better” than another.

England and Wales have themselves been internationally significant in criminalising coercive and controlling behaviour.

But Canada’s developing framework deserves serious attention.

Its federal family law tells courts explicitly to look for coercive and controlling patterns.

Its Supreme Court has recognised that intimate partner violence can cause a distinctive injury to dignity, autonomy and equality which traditional incident-based torts do not fully capture.

Its Parliament has now enacted a specific criminal coercive-control offence with a maximum penalty of ten years on indictment.

And, tellingly, Canada is delaying implementation of that offence to allow time for training.

There is a message in all of that.

Coercive control is not merely a category of behaviour. It is a way of understanding abuse.

Once the law accepts that, procedure, evidence gathering, professional training and judicial analysis need to follow.

That is where the next stage of reform in England and Wales should concentrate.

Key legal sources and authorities

“`

This article has been prepared by reference to primary and official materials current as at 8 August 2026, including:

Canada, Divorce Act, particularly the statutory definition of family violence and section 16 best-interests provisions concerning family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour.
Justice Canada, The Divorce Act Changes Explained, including official guidance concerning family violence, coercive and controlling behaviour and children’s exposure to abuse.
Justice Canada HELP Toolkit, addressing identification and response to family violence in family-law practice.
Supreme Court of Canada, Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia (2026), concerning the recognition of a tort of intimate partner violence.
Protecting Victims Act / Bill C-16, receiving Royal Assent on 18 June 2026, together with Justice Canada’s accompanying legislative material.
Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76, as amended.
Children Act 1989.
Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 12J — Child Arrangements and Contact Orders: Domestic Abuse and Harm.
Practice Direction 12Q concerning section 91(14) Children Act orders.
Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448.

“`

Legal information, not individual legal advice

“`

This article provides general legal information and commentary. Family proceedings are fact-sensitive and outcomes depend on the evidence, procedural history, orders sought, applicable law and the court’s assessment of the child’s welfare. If domestic abuse or coercive control is relevant to proceedings, careful legal and evidential analysis may be required.

“`

Need help making the pattern clear to the Family Court?

“`

Coercive-control cases can be particularly difficult for litigants in person because the evidence may be extensive while the court needs the issues presented clearly, proportionately and by reference to the child’s welfare.

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led support with:

chronologies and evidence organisation;
witness statements and position statements;
schedules of allegations and pattern analysis;
safeguarding evidence;
Cafcass reports and responses;
non-molestation order paperwork;
appeal paperwork;
hearing preparation;
case reviews; and
practical support for litigants in person dealing with complex family proceedings.

The purpose is not to exaggerate a case. It is to identify the legally relevant issues, organise the evidence properly and make the court’s job easier.

“`

Start with a 15-minute consultation

If you are not sure what help you need, where to start, or whether JSH Law can assist with your case, you can begin with a short 15-minute initial telephone consultation.

You can use the call to explain where your case currently stands, identify the immediate problem and discuss what practical support may be appropriate.

Choose an available time below:

The initial call does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship.

“`

Follow JSH Law

Follow JSH Law for family justice commentary, practical support for litigants in person, domestic abuse and safeguarding analysis, legal technology, AI and access-to-justice developments.

JSH Law on Linktree

Website articles, social channels, updates and JSH Law resources in one place.

“`

Can a secret recording be used as evidence in the Family Court?

August 6, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, 5. Court Skills for Litigants in Person/by jessica susan hill

A secret recording can capture an admission, expose abuse behind closed doors or prove that a professional account is inaccurate. It can also invade a child’s privacy, escalate conflict and seriously damage the recorder’s case. The legal position is not simply “recording is allowed” or “recording is illegal”: lawfulness, admissibility, authenticity and evidential weight are separate questions.

JSH Law | Evidence, domestic abuse and family justice

Secret Recordings in the Family Court: What England and Wales Can Learn from Australia and the Rest of the World

A secret recording may capture the admission, threat or controlling behaviour that nobody else sees. It may also invade a child’s privacy, amount to harassment, derail proceedings or damage the case of the person who made it. Following a significant Australian High Court judgment, this article examines how courts around the world approach covert recordings—and explains what litigants in person in England and Wales need to do before trying to rely on one.

Updated: 6 August 2026

The short answer

Yes, a covert recording can sometimes be used in family proceedings in England and Wales. But it is not automatically admissible merely because it appears relevant, and it is not automatically excluded merely because it was made secretly or may have been obtained improperly.

The court will consider relevance, evidential value, authenticity, completeness, fairness, privacy, proportionality and—above all in children proceedings—the welfare of the child. The reason for making the recording and the way it was obtained may become evidence about the recorder’s own behaviour.

Safety comes before evidence

Do not confront an abusive person or try to engineer an admission if doing so could place you or a child at risk. A recording is not a safety plan. If there is immediate danger, call 999. Evidence can be important, but no piece of evidence is worth escalating a dangerous situation.

The Australian case: a recording made to protect bodily autonomy

On 5 August 2026, the High Court of Australia delivered its unanimous judgment in Potter (A Pseudonym) v The King [2026] HCA 25.

The appellant had been convicted in South Australia of raping his wife while she was asleep. Before a later assault, the complainant had secretly recorded a conversation on her mobile phone in which he admitted sexually assaulting her while she slept.

She explained that she made the recording to remind herself not to return to the relationship. The appellant argued that the recording had been made contrary to South Australia’s Surveillance Devices Act 2016 and therefore could not be used at his trial.

The High Court rejected that argument. It held that making the recording was reasonably necessary to protect the complainant’s lawful interest in her bodily autonomy and integrity. Her circumstances—including her vulnerability, health problems, responsibility for two young children, limited support and continuing exposure to the appellant in the home—were central to that assessment.

“The interest of a person in not being raped is an interest deserving of the very strongest protection.”

Crucially, the court did not dismiss the recording as merely a private reminder that could have been replaced by a written note. It recognised that hearing the perpetrator’s stark admission could be a much more powerful reminder of the danger she faced.

The judgment is important because it takes the psychological and practical reality of abuse seriously. A victim-survivor may know that something terrible has happened but still be pulled back towards the relationship through fear, dependency, isolation, trauma, hope or coercive control. Evidence may serve a protective purpose before it ever becomes litigation evidence.

What the Australian judgment does not mean

This was a criminal appeal applying South Australian surveillance legislation. It did not decide that all secret recordings are lawful, that every recording of alleged abuse must be admitted, or that the same rule automatically applies in the family courts of Australia, England and Wales or any other country.

Australian surveillance law also varies between states and territories. The judgment must not be reduced to the dangerous social-media message that “the High Court says you can now secretly record anyone”.

Its deeper principle is more careful: the court examined the purpose of the recording, the nature of the lawful interest being protected and the victim-survivor’s actual circumstances at the time.

Three different questions: lawfulness, admissibility and weight

People often ask, “Is a secret recording legal?” That is only the first question.

1. Was it lawful to make?

This may depend on privacy, surveillance, data protection, harassment, computer-access and communications law, as well as whether the recorder participated in the conversation.

2. Can it be admitted?

A court may admit relevant evidence despite concerns about how it was obtained—or exclude material that would otherwise be admissible to deal with the case fairly and proportionately.

3. What weight will it carry?

A recording may be genuine but still misleading, incomplete, prompted, taken out of context or of little help in deciding the issues before the court.

A recording can therefore be lawful to make but excluded from a family case. Conversely, in England and Wales, evidence obtained improperly is not necessarily excluded automatically—although the person who obtained it may still face criticism, costs, an injunction or other consequences.

What is happening around the world?

No responsible article can state a single rule for “the whole world”. Recording law differs not only between countries but, in Australia, Canada and the United States, between states, territories or provinces. Family-court evidential rules may also differ from the criminal law regulating how a recording was made.

The following comparative survey covers representative common-law and civil-law jurisdictions across Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America and Oceania.

Jurisdiction	Making the recording	Court approach	Practical lesson
England and Wales	There is no simple statutory “one-party consent” rule governing every face-to-face recording by private individuals. Legality depends on the circumstances, purpose and later use. Harassment, privacy, data protection or other wrongdoing may arise.	No automatic exclusion solely because evidence was obtained improperly. The family court controls evidence under FPR 22.1 and considers relevance, authenticity, fairness, proportionality and welfare.	Tell the court early. Preserve and disclose the complete original. Do not secretly record children or hearings.
Australia	Surveillance legislation varies by state and territory. In Potter, South Australia’s protective-interest exception applied because the recording was reasonably necessary to protect bodily autonomy and integrity.	Lawfulness and admissibility remain separate, fact-sensitive questions. Improperly obtained evidence may be excluded, but the statutory and evidential framework varies.	Purpose, vulnerability, safety and the seriousness of the interest being protected matter.
India	Privacy arguments remain relevant, but the Supreme Court took a broad approach to spousal recordings in Vibhor Garg v Neha, 2025 INSC 829.	The court held that secretly recorded conversations could be placed before the Family Court in matrimonial proceedings. It relied on the exception to marital-communications privilege and the Family Court’s wide evidential powers.	Broad admissibility may assist truth-finding but also risks normalising surveillance between spouses. Admissible does not mean decisive or ethically justified.
Canada	Section 184 of the federal Criminal Code generally permits an interception where the originator or intended recipient consents. This usually allows a participant to record their own conversation, but not to bug conversations between other people.	Family courts commonly discourage secret recordings because of reliability, conflict and public-policy concerns. They may nevertheless admit compelling evidence where its value outweighs those concerns.	“Legal to make” does not mean “wise to make” or “certain to be admitted”.
United States	Federal law generally permits participant or one-party-consent recording, but state laws can be stricter. California, for example, generally protects confidential communications while creating specific domestic-violence and child-protection exceptions.	Admissibility is state-specific. Some custody courts have considered recordings even where the method of obtaining them was problematic; others exclude them or treat the recording conduct as relevant to parenting.	Never rely on a general statement that the US is a “one-party country”. Check the law of the particular state.
New Zealand	The Crimes Act 1961 contains an exemption where the person intercepting a private communication is a party to it. Recording other people’s conversation is a different matter.	Relevance, reliability, privacy and child-welfare considerations remain. Family Court hearings cannot be recorded without the judge’s express permission.	Participant-consent legislation does not remove the family court’s welfare and case-management controls.
France	Article 226-1 of the Penal Code criminalises deliberately recording private or confidential words without consent in circumstances engaging private life.	In 2023, the Cour de cassation held that unlawfully or unfairly obtained evidence is not automatically excluded from civil proceedings. The judge must decide whether it is indispensable and whether the interference is strictly proportionate.	A court’s ability to consider evidence does not retrospectively make the method used to obtain it lawful.
Germany	Section 201 of the German Criminal Code criminalises unauthorised audio recording of another person’s privately spoken words and unauthorised use or disclosure of such a recording.	Privacy and personality rights are strong. Any attempt to rely on covert material requires careful, case-specific advice; admissibility cannot be assumed.	International and cross-border families must not assume the English position applies while abroad.
South Africa	Section 4 of RICA generally permits a private person to intercept a communication to which they are a party, unless it is done for the purpose of committing an offence.	Relevance, authenticity, constitutional privacy and the child’s best interests remain important. Publication or wider use can raise separate issues.	Participant recording and unrestricted surveillance are not the same thing.
Brazil	The Federal Supreme Court’s Tema 237 states that evidence consisting of a recording made by one participant without the other participant’s knowledge is lawful.	Brazil’s Civil Procedure Code also permits parties to record civil hearings independently of judicial authorisation, although family cases remain subject to confidentiality and publication restrictions.	Brazil draws a very different line from England and Wales on recording proceedings themselves.

The global direction is not simply towards “record everything”. The emerging approach is purpose-specific: protect serious interests, test relevance and proportionality, preserve authenticity, avoid involving children and distinguish targeted evidence-gathering from coercive or obsessive surveillance.

The position in England and Wales

In May 2025, the Family Justice Council published detailed guidance entitled Covert Recordings in Family Law Proceedings Concerning Children. It was produced for professionals and people representing themselves.

The guidance identifies three main categories:

recordings of other family members, including the other parent;
recordings of professionals such as Cafcass officers, social workers or experts; and
recordings of children.

The category matters. A recording of an adult making an unprompted admission of violence is very different from a parent hiding a device in a child’s clothing and sending that child into the other parent’s home.

No automatic exclusion

In civil and family proceedings, there is no standalone rule requiring every piece of improperly obtained evidence to be excluded. However, rule 22.1 of the Family Procedure Rules gives the court wide control over:

the issues on which evidence is required;
the nature of the evidence required;
the way evidence is placed before the court; and
whether otherwise admissible evidence should be excluded.

The court therefore conducts a balancing exercise. It will ask whether the recording helps prove or disprove a fact that actually needs to be decided, whether considering it is proportionate and whether admitting it is compatible with dealing with the case justly.

Hearsay does not necessarily prevent its use

Most covert recordings will amount to hearsay because an out-of-court statement is being relied upon as evidence of what was said or of the truth of what was said.

In children proceedings, the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993 generally removes the rule against hearsay where the evidence concerns the upbringing, maintenance or welfare of a child. That does not mean the judge must believe it. Admissibility and evidential weight remain separate.

The recording may help—or seriously backfire

English family cases demonstrate both possibilities.

When a recording exposed wrongdoing

In Re F (Care Proceedings: Failures of Expert) [2016] EWHC 2149 (Fam), a recording helped reveal that a mother had been significantly misquoted and adversely misrepresented by an expert.

In Medway Council v A & Ors [2015] EWFC B66, recordings exposed racial abuse and hostility by a foster carer. They became important because the parents’ complaints had previously been treated dismissively.

When recording harmed the recorder’s case

In M v F (Covert Recording of Children) [2016] EWFC 29, a father and his partner recorded a child extensively, including by hiding devices in her clothing.

The recordings produced no useful information, increased costs, damaged relationships and raised serious concerns about the adults’ ability to understand and meet the child’s emotional needs.

This is the central reality: the content of a recording may not be the most important evidence it produces. The fact that a parent engaged in intrusive surveillance may itself become relevant to the welfare decision.

Domestic abuse and coercive control often happen where nobody else can see

Domestic abuse cases create a genuine evidential difficulty. Abuse is commonly carried out in private. The perpetrator may present as calm, credible and cooperative to professionals while behaving entirely differently in the home.

A recording may capture:

an admission of violence, sexual assault or threatening behaviour;
threats concerning the child, money, housing, immigration or court proceedings;
monitoring, humiliation, intimidation or repeated verbal degradation;
pressure to withdraw allegations or abandon an application;
instructions about what the victim or child must tell Cafcass, police or the court;
an attempt to prevent contact with relatives or support services;
a significant difference between the person’s private conduct and formal account; or
the tone, persistence and cumulative nature of coercive behaviour that a written message cannot convey.

That potential value must be recognised. Telling a victim-survivor that covert recording is always wrong can erase the reality that abuse is frequently hidden and routinely denied.

But the opposite approach—encouraging everybody in a high-conflict case to record constantly—is equally unsafe. Persistent surveillance can itself be coercive control, stalking, harassment or litigation abuse. An abusive parent may record selectively, manufacture confrontations, provoke reactions or use surveillance to make the other parent feel watched at all times.

The court should examine power and purpose

A targeted recording made by a frightened person during a conversation concerning threats or serious abuse is not equivalent to a campaign of monitoring an ex-partner, bugging a child or repeatedly manufacturing confrontations. Treating every covert recording as morally identical would obscure the dynamics of abuse.

The Australian judgment provides a useful model because it examined why the victim made the recording, what she needed to protect and the reality of the situation in which she was living.

Secretly recording a child is fundamentally different

The Family Justice Council guidance is clear that covertly recording children rarely promotes their welfare, whatever the parent’s intention.

This includes:

sewing or placing a recorder in a child’s coat, bag or clothing;
leaving a device in the child’s bedroom or another private space;
recording the child’s calls with the other parent;
asking the child repeated or leading questions while recording;
filming a child’s distress at handover to prove resistance to contact;
sending the child into a meeting with a hidden device; or
using a child’s smartwatch, telephone or other device as a surveillance tool.

A child may later experience the recording as a profound breach of trust. It can place the child in the middle of adult litigation and turn them into an evidence-gatherer against a parent or professional.

Leading questions also create reliability problems. A child may learn which answers a parent appears to want, repeat allegations to stop the questioning or become confused about whether words and ideas came from their own memory or from an adult.

Do not repeatedly question a child to produce evidence. If a child spontaneously says something concerning, make a calm contemporaneous note using their exact words, record the date and circumstances, avoid follow-up interrogation and report safeguarding concerns through the appropriate professional or legal route.

If a recording effectively becomes an informal assessment or examination of a child for the purpose of expert evidence, section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014 may also be engaged. Evidence resulting from an unauthorised assessment can be inadmissible unless the court rules otherwise.

Recording Cafcass, social workers, experts and meetings

Parents often want to record professionals because they:

have previously been misquoted;
struggle to take notes because of disability, trauma or anxiety;
want an accurate record of decisions and safeguarding concerns;
have experienced omissions or inaccuracies in professional notes; or
do not trust that a formal report will reflect what was actually said.

Those concerns are not inherently unreasonable. The Family Justice Council records Cafcass guidance that there is no legal reason why a parent or carer should not record their own interview, subject to any direction from the court. The Cafcass officer may state in their report that the interview was recorded.

The safer approach is usually to request an overt recording in advance and agree:

who will make the recording;
whether both sides will receive a copy;
how it will be stored securely;
who may listen to it;
whether permission is required before it is used in proceedings; and
that it will not be edited, published or circulated on social media.

Some specialist assessments, particularly neuropsychological testing, may be undermined by recording because it can affect the validity of the process or compromise protected testing material. Recording should therefore be discussed before the assessment begins.

If a professional refuses a reasonable request to record, ask for the refusal and reasons in writing. You can also request written minutes, submit written corrections promptly and ask for your corrections to be retained with the original record.

Never secretly record a court hearing

Recording a family court hearing without permission can amount to contempt of court. This applies to in-person, telephone, video and remote hearings.

Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits the unauthorised use of a sound-recording device in court. Additional restrictions apply to filming, photography, remote participation, publication and transmission.

Do not record the screen, use another telephone to capture the hearing, take screenshots, activate automatic meeting transcription or allow an AI note-taking bot to join without express permission.

If you need an accurate record, use the official process. HMCTS permits applications for an official audio recording or transcript using Form EX107. Judicial approval may be required, particularly in private family proceedings, and costs may apply.

I already have a recording—what should I do?

If a potentially relevant recording already exists, do not simply attach a short clip to your statement or send hours of audio to Cafcass. Handle it as evidence.

Preserve the complete original.
Keep the original file in its native format. Do not rename, trim, enhance, compress, filter or overwrite it. Create a separate working copy.
Back it up securely.
Keep an untouched copy in a secure location. Do not store the only copy on the telephone used to make it.
Record its provenance.
Note the date, approximate time, location, device used, people present, how the recording began and ended, and whether there are any gaps.
Identify the specific issue it proves.
Do not say only that it “shows what the other parent is like”. Link it to an issue the court must decide: an alleged threat, admission, breach, incident of abuse, safeguarding concern or material discrepancy in professional evidence.
Prepare a neutral schedule.
For each proposed recording, list the filename, date, duration, participants, short description, relevant allegation or issue and the important timestamps.
Prepare an accurate transcript.
Identify each speaker, include timestamps and mark unclear words as “[inaudible]”. Do not improve grammar or silently remove words. Make clear who prepared the transcript.
Tell the court early.
The Family Justice Council warns against trial by ambush. Late production may cause an adjournment, additional hearings, delay and costs.
Ask for case-management directions.
The court may require a Form C2 application on notice. Explain what was recorded, how and why it was recorded, whether it has been edited, and why it is relevant.
Provide the other parties with proper access if ordered.
Reliance on a selected excerpt while withholding the remainder is likely to create serious fairness and authenticity concerns.
Keep it private.
Do not upload it to Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, WhatsApp groups or campaign pages. Publication can engage contempt, family-court confidentiality, data protection, privacy, harassment and child-identification restrictions.

A useful witness-statement format

“On [date], during a conversation between [identify participants], I made an audio recording without [name]’s knowledge. I did so because [brief factual explanation—not argument]. I have preserved the original, complete and unedited file. The recording is approximately [duration] and is relevant to [identify the pleaded allegation or issue]. At approximately [timestamp], [briefly identify the relevant words or event]. I notified the court and the other parties of the recording on [date]. I will provide the complete original and an accurate transcript in accordance with the court’s directions.”

Possible directions to request

Depending on the case, a litigant may ask the court to consider directions dealing with:

whether permission to rely on identified recordings is required;
disclosure of complete unedited files by a specified date;
preparation of an agreed transcript or identification of disputed passages;
the precise issues for which each recording may be used;
secure filing and access arrangements;
whether a short admissibility hearing is necessary;
whether authenticity is genuinely disputed;
whether expert analysis would be necessary and proportionate; and
how the child’s privacy and welfare will be protected.

A forensic expert should not be instructed unilaterally where Part 25 and court permission apply. Expert analysis can also be expensive and disproportionate unless authenticity is genuinely in dispute and the recording is important to the outcome.

AI has made authenticity a much bigger issue

Recordings can now be edited, generated, enhanced and imitated with consumer technology. Voice cloning and deepfake video mean that “it sounds like them” or “the room looks familiar” may no longer be enough.

In Matter of M.S., decided in February 2026, New York’s highest court overturned Family Court findings that had depended upon video evidence because the videos had not been adequately authenticated. The majority expressly considered the growing ability to create convincing manipulated material.

For family proceedings in England and Wales, this makes the Family Justice Council’s emphasis on completeness and authenticity even more important.

Do not “improve” the original

Noise reduction, automatic clipping, voice isolation, speed adjustment or AI enhancement may be useful for creating a working copy, but the untouched original must remain available. Any processing should be documented and disclosed.

AI-generated transcripts must be checked manually against the recording. Automated tools frequently misidentify speakers, omit short words such as “not”, invent punctuation and convert unclear audio into confident but inaccurate text.

A transcript is an aid, not a replacement for the recording. If the words are disputed, the judge may need the original audio, the context and evidence from the people involved.

What England and Wales should learn

The international comparison reveals several lessons for the family justice system.

1. Purpose and power matter

The law should distinguish a targeted recording made to preserve evidence of serious abuse from persistent surveillance used to intimidate or control. The Australian focus on bodily autonomy and the person’s circumstances provides a principled way to make that distinction.

2. Children must not become surveillance devices

Across jurisdictions, courts repeatedly warn that bugging children, recording their private conversations and questioning them for litigation damages trust and increases conflict. The child’s welfare must not be sacrificed in the hunt for evidence.

3. Professionals should facilitate overt recording

People affected by trauma, disability, neurodivergence or language barriers may reasonably need an accurate record of an important interview or assessment. Clear organisational policies allowing overt recording can reduce suspicion, avoid disputes over notes and make covert recording less likely.

4. Authenticity must be addressed early

The rise of synthetic media means courts need proportionate procedures for preserving original files, recording provenance and resolving genuine challenges without turning every case into expensive digital-forensic litigation.

5. Litigants in person need usable directions

A person without a lawyer may not understand that sending a clip to the judge is procedurally inadequate. The 2025 Family Justice Council guidance is a major step forward, but courts should provide short standard directions covering disclosure, transcripts, authenticity, relevance and privacy whenever covert material is identified.

The right approach is neither “secret recordings are always wrong” nor “record everything”. It is evidence-led, safety-aware and child-focused: what was recorded, why, how, whether it is genuine, what it proves, whether there was a safer alternative and what impact the recording itself has had on the child and family.

Frequently asked questions

Can a secret recording be used in the Family Court?

Sometimes. The court will consider relevance, probative value, authenticity, completeness, privacy, fairness, proportionality and welfare. It may admit, limit or exclude the recording.

Is it illegal to record my ex-partner without telling them?

Not automatically, but there is no universal permission to record. The circumstances, purpose, location, method and later use matter. Persistent monitoring may engage harassment, controlling behaviour, data protection or privacy law.

Can I record an abusive threat or admission?

A targeted recording may have evidential value, but safety comes first. Do not provoke or confront an abusive person if this could increase the danger. Preserve any existing recording and obtain advice about reporting, safeguarding and court directions.

Can I hide a recorder in my child’s clothing or bag?

This is strongly discouraged and is almost always likely to be viewed as contrary to the child’s privacy and welfare. It may seriously damage your case even if you believed you were protecting the child.

Can I record Cafcass or a social worker?

Ask openly and agree the arrangements in advance. Cafcass guidance recognises that a parent may record their own interview, subject to any court direction, but the existence of the recording may be included in the report and the court may direct disclosure.

Can I secretly record a remote hearing?

No. Unauthorised recording of an in-person or remote court hearing can amount to contempt of court. Request an official audio recording or transcript through the proper HMCTS process.

Can I post the recording online after filing it in court?

Do not assume so. Family proceedings are subject to strict privacy, identification and publication restrictions. Sharing a recording may also breach data protection, privacy, harassment or court-order restrictions.

Can I rely on a short clip?

The court is likely to require access to the complete, unedited recording so that context and authenticity can be assessed. A selected clip may be misleading even if the words within it are genuine.

Will an admission on a recording automatically prove my case?

No. The court will consider what was actually admitted, the circumstances of the conversation, whether the admission was prompted or ambiguous, whether the recording is complete and how it fits with the rest of the evidence.

Does this article apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland?

No. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal systems and procedures. Specific advice should be obtained for the relevant jurisdiction.

Final thoughts

Recordings can reveal what happens behind closed doors. They can expose abuse, challenge inaccurate professional accounts and preserve evidence that would otherwise be denied. The courts must not dismiss that reality.

But surveillance can also be abusive. It can violate a child’s privacy, manufacture evidence, prolong proceedings and deepen conflict. The family court must therefore look beyond the mere existence of a recording and examine the entire context in which it was created and used.

The Australian High Court’s recognition of bodily autonomy is an important development. Its real value for England and Wales lies not in encouraging more secret recording, but in requiring courts to distinguish protective evidence-gathering by vulnerable victim-survivors from intrusive, coercive or litigation-driven surveillance.

Need help presenting digital evidence in a family case?

JSH Law supports litigants in person with reviewing recordings, organising digital evidence, preparing recording schedules and chronologies, identifying relevant timestamps, drafting witness statements and Form C2 applications, responding to disputed Cafcass or social-work accounts and preparing focused evidence for hearings.

The aim is not to overwhelm the court with hours of material. It is to identify what genuinely matters, preserve it properly and present it in a fair, proportionate and child-focused way.

Contact JSH Law

Sources and further reading

9,300 Domestic Abusers Set for Release: What Victims Need to Know

August 6, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, Safeguarding & Child Protection/by jessica susan hill

Reports that thousands of domestic abuse perpetrators may be released from prison have understandably caused fear and anger. For victims and children, release is not simply a sentencing statistic. It can mean renewed contact, stalking, intimidation, pressure through family court proceedings and the return of coercive control. The real question is not only when offenders are released, but whether victims are warned, listened to and properly protected before that release takes place.

Domestic abuse | Early release | Victim safety | Family justice

“9,300 Domestic Abusers Set to Be Released”: Victim Safety Cannot Be an Afterthought

A newspaper front page shared by domestic abuse campaigner Zoe Dronfield has exposed a question that cannot be answered with political slogans or reassuring press releases: when perpetrators of domestic abuse leave prison, who is making sure victims and children are warned, protected and heard?

Image and inspiration credit

This article was prompted by a photograph and social media post shared by domestic abuse survivor, author and campaigner Zoe Dronfield. Image credit: Zoe Dronfield. Permission should be obtained directly from Zoe before reproducing her photograph on the JSH Law website.

What the “9,300 domestic abusers” headline appears to mean
Why the reported figure requires careful examination
Why release on licence does not automatically mean victim safety
How coercive control and post-separation abuse can continue after imprisonment
What an offender’s release may mean in family court proceedings
What victims can do when release is expected
Why Zoe Dronfield’s work on serial perpetrators matters

A headline that will frighten victims — and understandably so

On 5 August 2026, the Daily Express carried the front-page headline: “9,300 domestic abusers set to be released.”

Beneath it, the newspaper reported warnings that vulnerable women could be placed at renewed risk. Zoe Dronfield photographed the front page and responded publicly, questioning how the Government could claim that it intended to halve domestic abuse while thousands of perpetrators were reportedly due to leave prison.

Her anger will be immediately recognisable to many survivors.

For a victim, an offender’s release is not an abstract discussion about prison capacity, sentencing reform or the management of the prison population. It may mean the return of unwanted messages, surveillance, stalking, threats, third-party contact, pressure through children, renewed litigation or an unexpected appearance outside the victim’s home, workplace or child’s school.

It may also reopen trauma that the victim has barely begun to process.

Victims are often expected to absorb this news calmly, update professionals, review court orders, improve home security, protect their children and prepare evidence — all while being told that the perpetrator will be “managed in the community”.

That phrase may sound reassuring inside a policy document. It can feel very different to the person who knows what the perpetrator is capable of.

The reported figure must be examined carefully

The seriousness of the safeguarding concern does not mean that the headline should be repeated without scrutiny.

At the time of writing, JSH Law has not identified a publicly accessible Ministry of Justice document setting out the figure of 9,300 in precisely the same terms used by the newspaper.

That means the number should be described as a reported figure unless its source, methodology, relevant period and definition are confirmed.

There are several important questions:

Does the figure cover England and Wales?
What period of release does it cover?
Does it include ordinary statutory releases as well as accelerated or early releases?
Does it refer to people convicted of a specific domestic abuse offence?
Does it include offenders convicted of assault, criminal damage, harassment or another offence committed in a domestic context?
Does it include people assessed by probation as presenting a domestic abuse risk even where domestic abuse was not the index offence?

These are not technical distractions. They determine what the headline actually tells us.

Domestic abuse is not a single offence category

Domestic abuse may be reflected in convictions for assault, stalking, harassment, controlling or coercive behaviour, strangulation or suffocation, threats, criminal damage, sexual offences or breaches of protective orders. A case may be recorded as domestic abuse-related through a flag attached to the underlying offence rather than through one universal offence label.

A perpetrator may therefore be serving a sentence for assault or criminal damage even though the offending formed part of a much wider pattern of coercive control.

Looking only at the formal offence title can seriously understate the risk.

Release from prison does not necessarily mean the sentence has ended

It is important to explain the legal position accurately.

In many cases, release from custody does not mean that an offender has completed the sentence or is free from all restrictions. The offender may continue serving the sentence in the community on licence.

Licence conditions can potentially regulate:

where the offender lives;
contact with a victim or child;
entry into an exclusion zone;
attendance at specified appointments or programmes;
reporting to probation;
electronic monitoring;
and other conduct necessary to manage identified risks.

An offender who breaches licence conditions may be recalled to prison.

But this is where the reassuring legal description collides with family reality.

A licence condition only protects a victim when:

the risk has been properly understood;
the condition is clearly and carefully drafted;
the victim knows that the condition exists;
the victim knows where to report a breach;
professionals recognise the behaviour as a breach;
agencies share information quickly;
and effective action follows before the situation escalates.

A condition written on paper is not a safety plan. Protection depends on whether the condition reflects the real pattern of abuse and whether somebody acts when it is breached.

Domestic abuse cannot be managed as a series of isolated incidents

Domestic abuse is often cumulative and patterned.

It may involve physical violence, but it may also involve stalking, coercive control, financial abuse, monitoring, humiliation, intimidation, threats, interference with employment, manipulation of children and the strategic use of legal proceedings.

Separation does not necessarily end that pattern. It may intensify it.

Imprisonment can temporarily interrupt a perpetrator’s direct access to the victim, but it does not automatically remove the underlying desire to control.

Abuse may continue from prison through:

telephone calls or letters;
relatives, friends or associates;
social media and digital accounts;
pressure involving children;
requests for personal information;
or applications and correspondence connected to family proceedings.

On release, the perpetrator may resume the pattern while presenting each new act as innocent, accidental or child-focused.

One message asking about a child may look harmless when read in isolation. It may look entirely different when placed beside previous threats, fifty unwanted messages, location monitoring, repeated breaches, third-party pressure and a history of using the child to obtain information about the victim.

Safeguarding professionals must see the pattern, not merely the latest incident.

Good behaviour in prison does not prove safety outside prison

Any release system that places weight on an offender’s behaviour in custody must recognise an obvious limitation: compliance inside a controlled institution is not the same as safe behaviour within an intimate or family relationship.

A perpetrator may comply with prison rules while continuing to blame the victim, minimising the offence, denying the wider pattern and planning to re-establish control after release.

Domestic abuse risk assessment must therefore look beyond disciplinary behaviour in custody.

It should consider:

the history and escalation of the abuse;
stalking, fixation or obsessive behaviour;
threats made before or during imprisonment;
previous breaches of bail, injunctions or court orders;
access to weapons;
strangulation or suffocation allegations or convictions;
threats of suicide, homicide or child removal;
the use of children as messengers or sources of information;
the victim’s own assessment of the danger;
and evidence of similar behaviour towards previous partners.

The question is not simply, “Has he behaved in prison?”

The safeguarding question is whether the perpetrator presents a continuing risk to a particular victim, child or future partner when the institutional controls are removed.

What the Probation Inspectorate has already found

Concerns about release planning are not based only on survivor fear or newspaper commentary.

In October 2025, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation published an evaluation of the Probation Service’s work to combat domestic abuse.

Where people were being released from prison, inspectors found sufficient pre-release work addressing domestic abuse in only 22 of the 38 relevant cases.

Appropriate licence conditions had been applied in 66% of relevant cases.

The inspectorate also found weaknesses in multi-agency information, contingency planning and the identification of the work being undertaken by other organisations.

Those findings matter because the public is repeatedly reassured that offenders released from custody will be supervised and managed by probation.

Supervision cannot be assumed to be effective simply because a case has been allocated to a probation officer.

The quality of the assessment, planning, information-sharing, licence conditions and response to breaches is what determines whether supervision provides meaningful protection.

Electronic monitoring may help — but tagging is not a complete answer

The Government has announced expanded electronic monitoring and more intensive supervision for offenders considered to present serious risks.

The Domestic Abuse Perpetrators on Licence scheme requires eligible adult offenders assessed as presenting a domestic abuse risk to wear an electronic tag after release where this is considered necessary and proportionate as part of licence planning.

The scheme began in two probation regions in 2023. Official Ministry of Justice information published in 2026 stated that it was operating in eight regions and was due to extend across all twelve probation regions in England and Wales by September 2026.

This is potentially useful. Electronic monitoring can help establish an offender’s location, support an exclusion zone and identify certain forms of non-compliance.

But a tag cannot detect:

coercive messages sent through another person;
pressure applied through children;
false or vexatious reports;
digital surveillance;
financial abuse;
manipulation through family proceedings;
or psychological intimidation carried out without entering a prohibited location.

Technology is a risk-management tool. It is not a substitute for skilled domestic abuse assessment, victim consultation and decisive enforcement.

Victims need information before release — not after something has gone wrong

One of the most frightening features of an offender’s release is uncertainty.

A victim may not know:

whether release has been confirmed;
the expected release date;
where the offender will live;
whether direct or indirect contact is prohibited;
whether an exclusion zone has been imposed;
whether electronic monitoring will be used;
what conduct should be reported as a breach;
which probation team is responsible;
or what to do outside office hours.

Eligible victims may receive information through the Victim Contact Scheme. A Victim Liaison Officer may provide information about the sentence and release process and can seek the victim’s views about licence conditions.

Victims should not assume that probation, police, Cafcass, social workers or the family court automatically possess the full history.

Relevant information may be fragmented across:

criminal proceedings;
police incident logs;
restraining or non-molestation order proceedings;
family court bundles;
Cafcass records;
children’s services files;
medical evidence;
school safeguarding records;
messages, emails and call logs;
and reports involving previous partners.

The practical challenge is often to bring those pieces together so that the pattern becomes visible.

What an offender’s release may mean in the family court

The release of a parent or former partner from prison may have immediate consequences for private children proceedings.

The released person may seek:

direct or indirect contact with a child;
the reinstatement or extension of previous contact;
a variation of an existing child arrangements order;
information about the child’s home, school or activities;
the removal of protective restrictions;
or renewed communication with the victim parent.

The family court’s paramount consideration when determining a question about a child’s upbringing is the child’s welfare.

Where domestic abuse is raised, the court must apply the relevant legal framework, including Practice Direction 12J.

The court should not limit its analysis to the name of the criminal offence or the fact that the perpetrator has served a custodial sentence.

It may need to examine:

the facts underlying the conviction;
the wider pattern of domestic abuse;
the impact on the child and victim parent;
whether the child has been used to monitor, pressure or punish the victim;
the perpetrator’s insight, accountability and understanding of harm;
compliance with previous criminal and family court orders;
the terms of the offender’s licence;
the existence of any restraining or protective order;
and whether arrangements can operate without exposing the child or victim to an unmanageable risk of harm.

Release does not automatically change a family court order

Release from prison does not automatically revive suspended contact, cancel a prohibited steps order, remove a non-molestation order or vary a child arrangements order. Equally, a family court order does not authorise conduct prohibited by a restraining order, bail condition or licence condition. Every relevant order must be read carefully and together.

The danger of disguising control as child-focused communication

Post-separation abuse is frequently presented as a parenting dispute.

A perpetrator may claim that repeated contact is necessary because of the child. Requests for school information, photographs, medical details, addresses, travel plans or direct communication may be framed as ordinary parental involvement.

Sometimes they are legitimate requests. Sometimes they are part of a continuing pattern of monitoring and control.

The distinction cannot be decided by reading one message in isolation.

Professionals need to consider:

the frequency and tone of communications;
whether existing communication arrangements are being respected;
whether the information is genuinely needed for the child;
whether the child is being questioned about the other parent;
whether third parties are being used;
whether requests escalate after boundaries are set;
and whether the communication causes fear because of the established history.

Child-focused language does not automatically make conduct child-focused.

What should a victim do when an abuser may be released?

The correct response will depend on the level of risk, the sentence, the existing orders and the circumstances of the child. The following is general information rather than legal advice on an individual case.

1. Confirm what is actually known

Distinguish between a rumour, an estimated date, media reporting and formal notification. Record who provided the information and when.

2. Contact the Victim Contact Scheme

Where eligible, ask to speak to the Victim Liaison Officer. Request clear information about the release process and ask whether your concerns about licence conditions and exclusion zones have been recorded.

3. Provide updated risk information

Tell the relevant professionals about recent threats, stalking, third-party contact, family court activity, access to weapons, previous breaches and any specific statements about what the perpetrator intends to do after release.

4. Review every current order

Check the terms and expiry dates of any:

non-molestation order;
occupation order;
restraining order;
child arrangements order;
prohibited steps order;
specific issue order;
bail condition;
or other protective direction.

5. Seek urgent advice where protection is inadequate

Depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary to consider an application for a non-molestation order, an urgent variation of child arrangements, a prohibited steps order or directions dealing with communication and disclosure of information.

6. Inform the child’s school or nursery where appropriate

Provide copies of relevant orders, confirm who may collect the child and agree what staff should do if the perpetrator attends or requests information.

7. Review digital security

Change passwords, enable two-factor authentication, review location sharing, check linked devices and consider whether a child’s telephone, tablet, gaming account or social media account may reveal location or private information.

8. Prepare an evidence-led chronology

A useful chronology should record:

the date and time;
what happened;
the words used;
the method of contact;
whether a child or third party was involved;
the order or condition potentially breached;
witnesses;
where it was reported;
the incident or reference number;
and the impact on the victim and child.

9. Make a practical safety plan

Specialist domestic abuse services and Independent Domestic Violence Advisers can help with safety planning, housing, reporting, protective measures and communication with criminal justice agencies.

10. Treat immediate danger as an emergency

Call 999 where there is an immediate risk. Do not place yourself or a child in danger to collect evidence. Safety comes first.

Why Zoe Dronfield’s work matters

Zoe Dronfield is a domestic abuse survivor, author and campaigner whose work has focused on coercive control, stalking, serial perpetrators and institutional failures across the criminal and family justice systems.

Zoe has spoken publicly about surviving a serious domestic violence attack and about the further trauma she experienced while navigating family court proceedings.

Her book, Mind Over Manipulators, examines abusive relationships, manipulation, coercive control and the struggle to be properly heard by institutions.

A central feature of Zoe’s campaigning is the need to identify serial and repeat perpetrators.

This matters because official records are often organised by incident, victim, offence, police force or court case.

One partner may know only what happened to her. A police force may hold reports made in one geographical area. The family court may see only the documents placed in its bundle. Probation may concentrate on the index offence. A later partner may report similar conduct without knowing that others have already raised the same concerns.

Each organisation can therefore hold one fragment of the picture while nobody identifies the pattern.

Serial perpetration may include:

similar allegations or findings involving different partners;
repeated stalking after separation;
the same threats or methods of intimidation;
repeated breaches of protective measures;
the use of litigation against successive victims;
and the repeated portrayal of victims as unstable, malicious or obstructive.

Allegations must always be distinguished from proven facts, admissions, convictions and judicial findings. Fairness and proper investigation remain essential.

But safeguarding systems must also be capable of recognising repeated warning signs. Waiting for each victim to be harmed in isolation is not a credible prevention strategy.

Zoe’s work is valuable because she refuses to allow domestic abuse to be reduced to disconnected incidents, administrative categories or faceless statistics.

Readers can explore Zoe’s books, interviews, campaigning and social media work through her official Linktree page.

JSH Law’s view: victims deserve facts, protection and accountability

There are two mistakes that must be avoided.

The first is to dismiss victim concern by explaining that offenders remain “on licence” and will be supervised in the community.

Licence supervision is not a magic shield. It protects victims only where the assessment is accurate, the conditions are workable, the victim has been consulted and breaches produce an effective response.

The second mistake is to repeat a frightening headline without establishing what the number means.

The public should be told clearly:

how the reported figure was calculated;
which offenders are included;
which release provisions apply;
which offences or categories are excluded;
how victims will be notified;
what risk assessment will take place;
how probation will be resourced;
what electronic monitoring can and cannot do;
and what action will follow a breach.

Transparency is not a public relations extra. It is part of safeguarding.

Victims should not learn that a perpetrator has been released through gossip, social media or an unexpected encounter. They should receive timely information, meaningful consultation and a safety plan built around the actual pattern of abuse.

The political debate about prison capacity and sentencing will continue.

For victims, however, the urgent questions are practical:

When is the perpetrator being released?
What restrictions will apply?
Does probation understand the full history?
Are the existing family court arrangements safe?
Does the child’s school know what to do?
Is an urgent application required?
Who will respond if contact is made or a condition is breached?

Those questions should be answered before release wherever possible — not after the victim or child has been placed at renewed risk.

Useful resources

Important legal disclaimer

This article provides general information about law, procedure and safeguarding in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for advice on an individual case. Release provisions, licence conditions, protective orders and family court remedies depend on the facts, the offence, the sentence, the applicable statutory framework and the orders already in force. In an emergency, call 999.

Concerned about an offender’s release or renewed family court action?

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led and trauma-informed support to litigants in person dealing with domestic abuse, coercive control, stalking, post-separation abuse and child safeguarding concerns.

We can help you:

organise messages, police records, reports and other evidence;
prepare an incident chronology or pattern-of-behaviour schedule;
review existing protective and family court orders;
draft statements, position statements and applications;
respond to Cafcass or professional reports;
prepare for urgent, interim or contested hearings;
and present the evidence clearly, calmly and in a form that helps the court identify the safeguarding issues.

The purpose is not to make inflammatory allegations or produce an emotional document that can be dismissed. It is to show the pattern, the evidence, the impact on the child and the practical protection required.

Book a JSH Law consultation

A Release Date Is Not a Safety Plan: What the October 2026 Prison Reforms Mean for Victims

August 4, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, Safeguarding & Child Protection/by jessica susan hill

The Government has narrowed its October 2026 prison-release reforms, but an important safeguarding gap remains. Domestic-abuse perpetrators are not excluded as a category, and risk cannot be measured by an offence label alone. For affected victims, the immediate priority is obtaining accurate information, meaningful licence conditions and a safety plan that accounts for children and any existing family-court orders.

Updated 4 August 2026. The Government has changed its planned prisoner-release reforms following sustained concern from victims and their representatives. People sentenced for rape, serious child sexual offences and grooming offences are now to be excluded from the new release arrangements, and implementation of the wider scheme has been delayed until 1 October 2026.

That is an important change. It is not, however, the same thing as a complete victim-safety plan. Domestic abuse perpetrators have not been excluded as a category. Nor have all violent, stalking or harassment cases. For the victims who remain affected, the urgent questions are practical: When is the offender likely to be released? Who has assessed the risk to me and my children? What conditions will apply? Who will tell the family court? What happens if those conditions are breached?

A release date is not a safety plan. A tag is not a physical barrier. A licence condition only protects a victim if it is informed by the real pattern of risk, communicated clearly and enforced quickly.

What has the Government announced?

Under the Sentencing Act 2026, a new “Progression Model” changes the earliest release point for some people serving standard determinate sentences in England and Wales. The Government’s announcement of 4 August 2026 says that:

the model will now come into force on 1 October 2026, rather than in September;
people sentenced for rape, serious child sexual offences and grooming offences will be excluded from the changes;
people serving life sentences or extended determinate sentences remain excluded and continue to be subject to the existing release framework, including Parole Board review where applicable;
for other standard determinate sentences currently carrying a 40% or 50% automatic release point, the earliest release point may become one third of the sentence;
where the existing automatic release point is two thirds, the earliest possible release point may become one half;
misconduct in prison may lead to added days and a later release;
there is to be a presumption of electronic tagging, tighter supervision and greater use of restriction or exclusion zones; and
the Government has announced £10 million for victim support, wider contact with affected victims and a dedicated helpline intended to be available by October.

Release on licence does not erase the sentence. The person serves the remaining part of the sentence in the community subject to licence conditions and may be recalled to prison for breach. But for a victim who had organised their safety, housing, employment, schooling or family-court case around the original release expectation, bringing forward the point of release can still be a profound and destabilising change.

The critical gap: domestic abuse perpetrators are not excluded as a group

The revised exclusions are defined principally by conviction and sentence. Real-world risk is not always so tidy.

A domestic abuse case may result in a conviction for coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, non-fatal strangulation, assault, criminal damage, harassment or breach of a protective order. The offence on the court record may capture only one part of a much longer pattern of coercion, fixation, surveillance and post-separation abuse. Some perpetrators convicted of domestic-abuse-related offending may therefore remain eligible for an earlier release point, depending on the precise offence, sentence and other statutory exclusions.

On 3 August 2026, Domestic Abuse Commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs said that the decision not to exclude domestic abuse perpetrators was wrong and placed victims’ lives at risk. Her office noted that protections used in the earlier SDS40 scheme for specified domestic abuse offences—including stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour and non-fatal strangulation—were not carried into the Sentencing Act model. The Commissioner called for thorough pre-release risk assessment and properly resourced probation supervision. Read the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s statement.

Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman OBE has welcomed the October delay but warned that “exclusions alone cannot guarantee victim or public safety”. She has called for effective risk management, meaningful licence conditions, proper supervision and timely, trauma-informed communication. Read the Victims’ Commissioner’s statement.

Why good behaviour in prison is not the same as safety for a victim

Prison conduct is relevant, but it answers a different question from the one a victim needs answered. A person may comply with rules in a controlled environment while continuing to present a targeted risk to a former partner, child or family member on release. Domestic abuse risk can be victim-specific, relationship-specific and heightened by separation, loss of control, family-court proceedings or a perceived grievance.

A sound release plan therefore needs more than a record of prison behaviour. It should draw on information held by police, probation, prisons, domestic abuse services, children’s services and—where lawful and relevant—the family court. It should identify the perpetrator’s pattern, the people and locations at risk, previous breaches, access to children, digital routes of contact and foreseeable trigger points.

What licence conditions can a victim request?

Victims who use the Probation Service’s Victim Contact Scheme can ask for licence conditions relating to themselves or their family. A Victim Liaison Officer can pass those representations to the relevant decision-maker and explain which conditions have been approved. Possible conditions may include:

no direct or indirect contact with the victim or specified family members;
an exclusion zone around a home, workplace, school, nursery or other necessary location;
restrictions on entering a named area;
electronic monitoring, where authorised and appropriate;
residence at Approved Premises; and
other proportionate conditions directed to an identified risk.

A victim may request a condition but does not personally decide the licence. Be precise. “Keep him away from me” is understandable, but a usable representation identifies the people, addresses, routes, schools, workplaces and forms of indirect contact that require protection. If disclosing an address would itself create danger, say so expressly and ask how it can be protected while still informing the exclusion-zone decision.

Suggested wording to send to a Victim Liaison Officer

“Please confirm whether the Sentencing Act 2026 changes affect the offender in my case and the current expected month of release. I wish to make representations about victim-related licence conditions before the licence is finalised. I request no direct or indirect contact with me or the named members of my family, together with exclusion zones covering the locations set out in the attached confidential schedule. Please confirm who is assessing the risk, whether my information has been included in that assessment, which conditions are approved, when they begin and end, and how I should report a suspected breach.”

Seven steps to take if you receive an early-release letter

Do not assume the first letter is the final position. Keep every letter and email. Ask in writing whether the 4 August exclusions change the position in your case and request the current expected release month.
Contact your Victim Liaison Officer promptly. Check that the Probation Service holds safe, current contact details. Say how and when it is safe to contact you. If you previously opted out of the Victim Contact Scheme, you can ask to opt back in while the offender is serving the sentence.
Make written representations about licence conditions. Identify no-contact requirements, exclusion zones and risks to children or other family members. Explain previous breaches, stalking, threats, weapon use, strangulation, surveillance, third-party contact or attempts to use court proceedings as a route back into your life.
Ask for a multi-agency safety plan. If you have an IDVA, ISVA, stalking advocate, social worker or police contact, tell them about the proposed release. Ask what information has been shared with probation and what you should do if the offender appears, contacts you or uses another person to make contact.
Review every protective order and its expiry date. A criminal restraining order, licence condition, non-molestation order and child arrangements order are separate legal instruments. They may protect different people, prohibit different conduct and end on different dates. Do not assume that one fills a gap left by another.
Tell the family court and Cafcass if children may be affected. In ongoing proceedings, notify the court promptly and consider an application for urgent directions. If proceedings have ended, legal advice may be needed about an urgent application to vary or suspend child arrangements. More detail appears below.
Report breaches; do not investigate them yourself. If there is immediate danger, call 999. Preserve messages, screenshots, call logs, doorbell footage and witness details. Report suspected licence breaches to the appropriate probation contact and report criminal conduct or immediate risk to the police.

What if there is a child arrangements order?

Release from prison does not automatically grant, restore, suspend or vary child contact. It also does not automatically vary an existing child arrangements order. The family court must make its own welfare-based assessment, applying the Children Act 1989 and, where domestic abuse is alleged or established, Practice Direction 12J.

Where release creates a new or increased risk, practical options may include:

in ongoing children proceedings, using Form C2 to request an urgent order or directions, where appropriate;
where proceedings have concluded, using Form C100 to apply to vary or discharge a child arrangements order;
filing Form C1A to set out harm or risk of harm to a child or adult;
asking the court to consider urgent interim arrangements, such as suspension, indirect contact or professionally supervised contact, if supported by the evidence and necessary for safety;
asking for relevant information from police or probation to be obtained through proper court directions rather than relying on assertion or incomplete correspondence; and
using Form C8 where contact details need to be withheld from another party.

Urgent and without-notice children applications are exceptional and the correct route depends on the procedural position. HMCTS publishes specific guidance on urgent child-arrangements hearings. If an existing order cannot safely operate because of a genuinely immediate risk, obtain urgent legal advice and place the issue before the court as quickly as possible. Do not treat an internet article as a substitute for advice on whether a particular order must be followed in the circumstances.

Can a victim seek a protective injunction?

A person who is eligible under the Family Law Act 1996 may apply for a non-molestation order to protect themselves or a relevant child from abuse or harassment. An occupation order can regulate occupation of the family home. Applications use Form FL401. In a qualifying urgent case, the court can consider an application without notice to the respondent.

There is no court fee for an FL401 application. Legal aid may be available for protection from domestic abuse and for some related private family-law cases, subject to the rules on evidence, scope and financial eligibility. See the Government’s domestic abuse legal-aid guidance.

What evidence should be assembled?

A short, organised evidence pack is more useful than a mass of unstructured material. Consider keeping:

the sentencing result, sentencing remarks or judgment, if available;
all release-date and Victim Contact Scheme correspondence;
the name and contact details of the Victim Liaison Officer and other professionals;
copies of restraining orders, non-molestation orders, occupation orders and child arrangements orders;
a concise chronology of incidents, threats, breaches and safeguarding concerns;
police incident or crime-reference numbers;
relevant messages, call logs, screenshots and third-party contact;
school, medical, social-care or specialist-support evidence, where relevant and lawfully obtained; and
a clear schedule of the licence conditions and exclusion zones requested, with reasons.

Keep fact, concern and request separate. For example: “On 12 June he contacted me through X despite the restraining order” is a fact capable of evidence. “I believe the risk is escalating because…” is an assessment. “I ask for an exclusion zone covering…” is the protective request. That structure makes it easier for probation, police and the court to act.

The wider lesson: justice systems must be designed around the person at risk

The prison-capacity crisis is real. So is the risk of system failure if courts cannot remand or imprison dangerous offenders. But presenting prison capacity and victim safety as competing abstractions misses the operational issue. The question is whether reform has been designed end-to-end—from sentence and release calculation through probation, victim notification, safeguarding, family-court coordination and enforcement.

The October delay creates a narrow implementation window. Success should not be measured only by the number of prison places released. It should also be measured by whether every affected victim was reached safely, whether their information changed the risk assessment, whether appropriate conditions were in place before release, whether agencies knew who would act on a breach, and whether children’s arrangements were reviewed where necessary.

Victim communication is not a courtesy added after the policy decision. It is part of public protection.

Frequently asked questions

Are all prisoners being released after one third of their sentence?

No. The changes apply to particular standard determinate sentences and are subject to statutory exclusions and the prisoner’s conduct. Different sentence types have different release rules. Ask the Victim Liaison Officer to explain the position in the individual case.

Are rape and child sexual offenders included?

The Government announced on 4 August 2026 that rape, serious child sexual and grooming offences will be excluded from the new Progression Model changes. The exact legal implementation and offence schedule should be checked once the necessary legislation or regulations are published.

Are domestic abuse offenders excluded?

Not as a category. Some may be excluded for another legal reason, such as sentence type or an excluded offence, but other domestic-abuse-related offenders may fall within the new model. Eligibility must be checked case by case.

Can I ask to be told the exact release date and address?

The Victim Contact Scheme provides specified information at key stages, but victims are not necessarily entitled to every operational detail. The published scheme says a victim can choose to be told the month of release and can be informed about agreed victim-related licence conditions. Ask your Victim Liaison Officer what can safely and lawfully be disclosed in your case.

Can I insist on a no-contact condition or exclusion zone?

You can make representations and request conditions relating to you or your family. The responsible authority decides whether each condition is necessary and proportionate. Give specific evidence and reasons, and ask to be told what has been agreed.

What happens if the offender breaches licence conditions?

A licence breach can lead to recall to prison. Conduct may also amount to a separate criminal offence or breach of a court order. Do not confront the offender. Preserve evidence, follow the reporting plan given by probation and contact police immediately if there is danger or suspected criminal conduct.

Does release mean a parent can immediately resume contact with a child?

No. Release does not itself create or restore child contact and does not alter an existing family-court order. Any contact must be lawful under the relevant family and criminal orders and consistent with licence conditions. If circumstances have materially changed, an urgent family-court application may be necessary.

Who can I contact now?

If you have received contact from someone in prison or are worried about release, the current HMPPS Victim Helpline is 0300 060 6699 and victim.helpline@justice.gov.uk. The Government has said that a further dedicated helpline for people affected by the 2026 reforms will be available by October.

Support and urgent help

Emergency: call 999.
HMPPS Victim Helpline: 0300 060 6699 or victim.helpline@justice.gov.uk.
Victim Support: 08 08 16 89 111, free and available 24/7.
National Domestic Abuse Helpline: 0808 2000 247, free and available 24/7.
National Stalking Helpline: 0808 802 0300.

How JSH Law can help

JSH Law supports litigants in person to turn complex histories into clear, court-ready material. Where a proposed release affects family proceedings or protective arrangements, we can help you organise the relevant orders and correspondence, prepare a focused chronology, identify the evidence needed, and structure the issues and urgent requests for the court. The correct legal route depends on the facts, the orders already in force and whether proceedings remain open.

This article provides general information about the law and procedure in England and Wales as at 4 August 2026. It is not legal advice. Sentencing and release rules are technical and may change as the Government implements its announcement. If you or a child is at immediate risk, call 999.

Key sources

Pressured Into Swinging? UK Consent and Court Guide

July 29, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster, Coercive Control, McKenzie Friend Support/by jessica susan hill

Being married, joining a swingers’ website or sending apparently enthusiastic messages does not automatically prove free consent. This practical guide explains how to report sexual coercion, preserve digital evidence, challenge a no-further-action decision, seek protection and present relevant allegations in the Family Court.

Consent, coercive control and court evidence

Pressured into swinging or sex with strangers? Consent, reporting and court options in England and Wales

Being married, registering on a swingers’ website, attending an encounter or sending apparently enthusiastic messages does not automatically prove free consent. This guide explains what the law asks, how to report sexual abuse or coercive control, how to preserve digital evidence, what to do after a “no further action” decision, and how the same history may be relevant in the Family Court.

By Jessica Susan Hill, JSH Law | 29 July 2026

Jurisdiction: England and Wales. Law and links checked: 29 July 2026.

The short answer

In England and Wales, sexual consent means agreeing by choice while having the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Compliance, appeasement, a previous “yes”, participation in a sexual lifestyle, or a message that looks enthusiastic when read alone is not necessarily consent to a particular act with a particular person at a particular time.

Pressure is not automatically a criminal offence. The precise words, conduct, surrounding pattern, effect on you, sexual act, other person’s knowledge and the date of the conduct all matter. Depending on the evidence, possible issues include rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault, causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, controlling or coercive behaviour, harassment, assault, or an intimate-image offence. Police and prosecutors must assess the elements of each offence; a Family Court applies a different process and standard of proof.

1. What the BBC Swingers investigation changes—and what it does not

BBC Radio Wales’ Swingers, presented by Catrin Nye, reported Ruth O’Grady’s account that her former husband pressured her into a swinging lifestyle and that she had sex with strangers more than 100 times. The reporting examined extensive WhatsApp material, including 711 pages containing 321,983 words. O’Grady described messages which, outside the relationship’s wider context, could look willing or enthusiastic.

The programme and subsequent reporting brought a difficult evidential issue into public view: a person experiencing coercive control may organise, facilitate or appear to agree to conduct as a way of managing risk, avoiding conflict or surviving within the relationship. That does not mean every unhappy, reluctant or later-regretted encounter is a crime. It means the evidence must be assessed in context rather than by treating a selected message as a complete answer to consent.

BBC follow-up reporting said that around 50 women contacted the broadcaster after the series and that the FabSwingers website was mentioned in 329 police records since 2023. Reports or allegations are not proof of criminal liability. FabSwingers has said that it has moderation and safety measures and has disputed suggestions that it is indifferent to abuse. O’Grady’s former husband was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and did not respond; the reported police investigation did not result in a charge. There has been no court finding determining the allegations described in the programme.

This article is not about condemning consensual non-monogamy or swinging between adults who choose it freely. It is about what happens when apparent participation is said to have been secured through fear, threats, humiliation, monitoring, financial dependency, punishment, sexual pressure or a wider course of controlling behaviour.

3. Which criminal offences may be relevant?

The correct offence depends on the facts and the law in force when the conduct happened. The table below is an orientation guide, not a charging decision.

Possible legal issue	Conduct it may cover	Important qualification
Rape: section 1, Sexual Offences Act 2003	Intentional penile penetration where the complainant did not consent and there was no reasonable belief in consent.	Rape has a specific statutory definition. Other forms of penetration may fall under assault by penetration.
Assault by penetration: section 2	Intentional sexual penetration of the vagina or anus with a body part or object, without consent and without reasonable belief in consent.	The prosecution must prove every statutory element.
Sexual assault: section 3	Intentional sexual touching without consent and without reasonable belief in consent.	Touching has a broad statutory meaning, but the facts still have to prove the offence.
Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent: section 4	Intentionally causing another person to engage in sexual activity where they do not consent and there is no reasonable belief in consent.	This may be relevant where a partner is said to have caused sexual activity with somebody else. Liability always turns on the evidence and precise statutory elements.
Controlling or coercive behaviour: section 76, Serious Crime Act 2015	A repeated or continuous course of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship which has the required “serious effect”.	The statutory relationship, knowledge and serious-effect tests must be met. The offence was extended to certain post-separation conduct from 5 April 2023; that extension is not retrospective.
Sharing or threatening to share intimate images: section 66B, Sexual Offences Act 2003	Depending on intent and date, sharing an intimate photograph or film without consent, or threatening to share one.	Section 66B applies to relevant conduct on or after 31 January 2024. Earlier conduct is assessed under the law then in force. A threat may be an offence even if the image does not exist.
Harassment, stalking, assault or other offences	Repeated unwanted contact, surveillance, threats, violence or related conduct.	These offences have their own definitions and defences. Do not assume one label covers the whole history.

What about the strangers or other participants?

Each person’s potential liability is assessed individually. A third party may genuinely have believed the person consented, or the evidence may support a different conclusion. For a sexual offence, the investigation will consider what that participant knew, what they observed, what was said, and what steps they took to establish consent. A partner’s alleged pressure does not automatically make every participant guilty, but nor does a website profile automatically provide reasonable belief in consent to everything that later happened.

If the conduct predates 1 May 2004, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 may not be the governing law. Historical allegations can still be reported, but investigators must apply the offence in force at the time.

For controlling or coercive behaviour, the required “serious effect” means either causing fear on at least two occasions that violence will be used, or causing serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on usual day-to-day activities. Examples of day-to-day impact may be relevant evidence, but the statutory test and the defendant’s knowledge still have to be proved.

4. What to do now: safety, health, evidence and reporting

You do not have to decide every legal route at once. A useful order is safety first, healthcare where needed, preservation of evidence, specialist support, then a considered decision about reporting or court action.

If the risk is current

Call 999 if you or a child is in immediate danger.
Use a safe device if your phone, email, location or browsing may be monitored.
Do not announce that you are gathering evidence if doing so could increase the risk.
Ask the police or a domestic-abuse service for safety planning, including risks around separation.
If safe, change important passwords, end unknown sessions and enable two-factor authentication. Consider a new email address that the other person cannot access.

If an assault was recent

Seek medical help promptly. The Government’s rape and sexual-assault reporting guidance explains immediate reporting and evidence options. A SARC may be able to arrange a forensic medical examination and preserve samples while you decide whether to involve the police. If possible after a very recent assault, avoid washing or changing clothes until you have received advice—but your wellbeing comes first, and washing does not prevent you from reporting.

If the conduct was months or years ago

There is no general time limit for reporting rape or another sexual offence to the police. Delay is common and is not, by itself, proof that an allegation is untrue. Tell the police why you are reporting now and, if relevant, what prevented you reporting earlier. The date still matters because it decides which criminal law applies and may affect available evidence.

5. How to report to the police

A victim reports an alleged crime; the state, through the police and Crown Prosecution Service, decides whether a criminal case should be charged and prosecuted. You do not have to fund the prosecution or apply for criminal legal aid as the complainant.

A clear way to start the report

“I want to report sexual offences and a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour by my current/former partner. I appeared to participate in encounters, but I say that I did not have freedom to choose. I was afraid that [briefly identify the threatened or experienced consequence]. The conduct happened between approximately [dates]. There are full message exports, platform data and [identify other evidence]. I need a safe method and time for police contact.”

Use your own words. You do not need to identify the correct statutory offence. Avoid trying to make the report sound more legally sophisticated than the facts.

Information that helps at the outset

Your safe contact details and whether messages, calls or post could put you at risk.
The broad date range, locations and names or usernames of the people involved.
One or two clear examples of sexual conduct you say was not freely chosen.
The consequences you feared or experienced when you resisted.
Whether children were present, overheard events or experienced their effects.
Whether there are weapons, stalking, strangulation, threats, escalating behaviour or separation risk.
Where the original devices, accounts, messages, images and platform records are held.
Any risk that data will be deleted and any platform preservation request already made.

Ask for a crime or incident reference and the officer’s contact details. Ask whether a specialist sexual-offence or domestic-abuse investigator will be involved and for a referral to an Independent Sexual Violence Adviser (ISVA), if appropriate. An ISVA can provide independent practical support; they do not decide whether a charge is brought.

Do not wait for a perfect evidence pack

A concise initial account is enough to begin a report. It is better to preserve material and identify where it is than to spend months producing a polished dossier while data disappears or risk escalates. Tell the officer if you have more material and ask how they want it supplied. Keep a log of what you provide, to whom, when and in what format.

6. How to preserve messages, accounts and other digital evidence

Digital evidence can show both an individual incident and the environment in which a decision was made. It can also contain material that appears inconsistent with your account. Preserve first; analyse on a working copy.

Preserve the original context

Keep the original phone, computer and storage media safe where possible.
Export complete conversations with dates, times and attachments, rather than relying only on screenshots.
Keep original image, audio and video files with their available metadata.
Record the platform name, profile URL, usernames, account identifiers and relevant dates.
Download account data through the platform’s legitimate export function, if safe and available.
Save emails and documents in their native format as well as producing readable copies.
Keep an untouched master copy and use a duplicate for highlighting, redaction or court preparation.
Record when and how each export was made. Do not change file dates, crop originals or overwrite source files.

Ask the platform to preserve records

Report the relevant account or content using the platform’s official route and ask it to preserve account, login, message, upload and moderation records because a police report or legal proceeding is contemplated. Save the ticket number and the exact request. A user’s preservation request does not guarantee retention or disclosure; the police may need to make the appropriate formal request.

Does the website become legally responsible?

Not automatically. The fact that a service was used, or was mentioned in police material, does not by itself establish that the operator committed an offence or owes damages. A potential claim against a platform can raise different issues about the operator’s acts and knowledge, contractual terms, data protection, content reporting, causation, jurisdiction and limitation. Preserve the platform’s response and moderation history, but obtain specialist advice before threatening or issuing a claim. A complaint to the platform is not a substitute for reporting an alleged sexual offence to police.

Keep the account lawful and safe

Do not guess another person’s password, install surveillance software, impersonate them, provoke a response, or ask a witness to adopt your version. Do not circulate intimate images to friends or upload them to a public AI service. Tell police that relevant images exist and ask for a safe, lawful transfer method. Never create, copy or transmit unlawful child sexual material.

Build a chronology without losing the source

A chronology is an index, not a substitute for the underlying evidence. A useful working structure is:

Date/time	What happened	Boundary, hesitation or request	Response or consequence	Impact	Source reference	Witness/other record
12–13 May 2024	Partner proposed and arranged meeting through account.	Message at 18:42: “I don’t want to go tonight.”	Threat concerning housing; later friendly message confirming attendance.	Fear, no sleep, missed work next day.	WhatsApp export, chat A, lines/time stamps; original phone retained.	Contemporaneous message to sibling; employment absence record.

The example is illustrative. Use neutral language. If a message looks consensual, include it and explain its sequence and significance rather than omitting it. Distinguish what you remember, what a record proves, what another person said, and what you infer.

Useful evidence may come from outside the sexual encounters

Messages showing rules, monitoring, punishment, threats or pressure.
Location, travel, calendar, booking or payment records.
Medical, counselling or SARC records.
Work absence, performance or occupational-health records showing impact.
Bank statements or benefits records relevant to financial control.
Contemporaneous disclosures to friends, family or professionals.
Police call-outs, body-worn video, incident logs or previous reports.
Evidence of account control, device access, deleted content or threats involving images.

Evidence of impact can support a coercive-control investigation, but distress is not a substitute for proving the conduct. Equally, an absence of medical records or an immediate disclosure does not automatically disprove abuse.

7. What may happen in a criminal investigation

Initial report and risk assessment. Police should record the allegation, assess immediate safeguarding and decide which specialist team should investigate.
Your account. You may be asked for a detailed written or video-recorded interview. Say when you are unsure. Correct mistakes promptly; do not fill gaps by guessing.
Evidence gathering. Police may seek devices, platform records, medical material, witnesses, financial records, previous incidents and evidence from the suspect. Ask what is being taken, obtain a receipt and explain any material you need for daily life.
Charging decision. Depending on the offence and evidence, police may decide no further action or refer the case to the CPS. The CPS applies its evidential and public-interest tests.
Court. If charged, the defendant is presumed innocent unless proved guilty. A complainant is normally a prosecution witness, not a party conducting the case.

Privacy and support at a criminal trial

A person who alleges a qualifying sexual offence normally has automatic lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, subject to statutory exceptions. Ask police or a qualified lawyer how it applies to your particular allegation, especially where the report is limited to a non-sexual or intimate-image offence.

Tell the police and ISVA about communication needs, disability, trauma, fear of the defendant and any risk created by attending court. Depending on eligibility and the court’s decision, special measures may include screens, a live link, a recorded interview as evidence-in-chief or pre-recorded cross-examination. Special measures support the giving of evidence; they do not predetermine guilt.

8. What to do after a no-further-action decision

First identify who made the decision. The review route and deadline differ.

Decision-maker	Review route	Usual timing	Practical first step
Police, where the case was not referred to the CPS	Police Victims’ Right to Review: scheme information	Request the review within three months of the decision. A late request may be considered under the scheme.	Ask for the written decision, reasons, review form or route, and confirmation of the deadline.
Crown Prosecution Service	CPS Victims’ Right to Review: scheme information	The CPS says a request should ordinarily be made within 10 working days of the decision letter. A later request can be submitted, but one made more than three months after the decision was communicated is unlikely to be accepted without exceptional circumstances.	Use the details in the CPS letter. You do not have to provide legal submissions or have a lawyer to request a review.

A useful review request identifies the decision, asks for the whole decision to be reconsidered and points precisely to any material evidence or context you believe was missed. It should not simply repeat every allegation or accuse the decision-maker of bias. Ask your ISVA for support with the process. A review is not an appeal against an acquittal and does not guarantee a charge.

9. Children and the Family Court

Sexual coercion and controlling behaviour may also be relevant to child arrangements, parental responsibility, contact safety and a child’s welfare. This is a different jurisdiction from the criminal court.

The court is concerned with welfare and risk

Under section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a child who sees, hears or experiences the effects of domestic abuse and is related to the victim or perpetrator is also recognised as a victim of domestic abuse. A child does not need to have witnessed a sexual act. They may have experienced fear, conflict, disrupted care, secrecy, threats, a parent’s distress or the consequences of control.

In child-arrangements proceedings, Practice Direction 12J requires the court to address domestic-abuse allegations relevant to welfare and risk. The court decides whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary and proportionate; one is not automatic. The Court of Appeal in Re H-N and Others (Children) stressed that a pattern may be more significant than isolated incidents and that the court should focus on allegations necessary to determine welfare and risk.

Criminal and family outcomes can differ

A criminal court asks whether the prosecution has proved an offence beyond reasonable doubt. A Family Court determines disputed facts on the balance of probabilities and then considers welfare and risk. A police decision not to charge, a CPS no-further-action decision or the absence of a criminal complaint does not automatically prevent the Family Court from considering the alleged conduct. Equally, an allegation is not a finding, and the Family Court must decide disputed facts fairly.

Forms and information the court may need

If starting or responding to private child-arrangements proceedings, use the current Form C1A where allegations of harm or domestic abuse need to be raised, together with the correct main application or response route.
If an existing case needs an urgent application or directions, the appropriate form may be C2. Check the order, the Family Procedure Rules and court guidance rather than assuming the form.
If revealing your address or contact details would create a risk, consider Form C8 and avoid placing the protected information elsewhere in a statement or attachment.
State the findings or protective directions sought and explain their relevance to the child. Do not file every intimate detail merely because it exists.
If relying on an exemption from a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM), identify the applicable exemption and evidence under the current rules.

Participation and protection inside the Family Court

Tell the court at the earliest opportunity if domestic abuse affects your ability to participate or give evidence. Part 3A and Practice Direction 3AA require the court to consider participation directions. Depending on the circumstances, arrangements may include separate waiting areas, screens, a video link, adjusted arrival times, a different courtroom layout, ground rules or other measures.

In some cases direct cross-examination in person is prohibited. The court may appoint a publicly funded qualified legal representative to conduct specified questioning if the statutory conditions are met. That appointment is for the questioning directed by the court; it is not general representation for the whole case. An IDVA or ISVA may also be able to attend in accordance with Practice Direction 27C.

Repeated applications used as a continuation of abuse may justify consideration of a section 91(14) order, which restricts further Children Act applications without permission. Such an order is protective, not punitive, and depends on the circumstances.

10. Non-molestation and occupation orders

If protection is needed from a current or former partner or another “associated person”, the Family Court can consider:

a non-molestation order, which can prohibit violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, contact or other specified conduct; and
an occupation order, which regulates who may live in or enter a home and, in some cases, the surrounding area.

The application is made on Form FL401. There is no court fee. The supporting statement should set out the key history, current risk, significant recent events, any risk to children and the precise protection sought. If the application needs to be made without notifying the respondent first, explain the urgency and why notice may create danger, deter you from pursuing the application or defeat its purpose. The court decides whether a without-notice order is justified and will usually list a later hearing.

Consider Form C8 if contact details must be withheld. A breach of a non-molestation order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. Keep a sealed copy, understand its exact terms, and report alleged breaches promptly. An order is not a substitute for an emergency call when danger is immediate.

11. Criminal injuries compensation and civil claims

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

A person injured by a violent crime in Great Britain, including sexual assault, may be able to apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). The Government application guidance says the crime must be reported to the police and an application should normally be made as soon as reasonably practicable, usually within two years. Exceptions can apply, including in some sexual-abuse cases. Do not wait for a trial to finish before checking the deadline. A conviction is not essential, but CICA decides whether the statutory scheme is satisfied and may consider cooperation, conduct and other eligibility rules.

The application itself is free. Be careful about paid claims-management services that imply they can guarantee an award. Keep the police reference, medical information, loss evidence and CICA correspondence. Obtain advice promptly if the usual time limit has passed or the application is refused.

A civil claim against a perpetrator or another defendant

A civil damages claim may sometimes be possible, but it is not the same as a criminal prosecution, Family Court application or CICA claim. Limitation, the defendant’s ability to pay, evidential issues, costs risk, service, insurance and the psychological burden all matter. Personal-injury claims commonly engage a three-year limitation period, subject to different rules and a possible judicial discretion in some cases. Obtain specialist advice urgently rather than assuming that an old claim is either automatically in time or automatically barred.

12. Does this qualify for legal aid?

It may. “Legal aid for a sexual-abuse or coercive-control case” is not one single test. Scope, evidence, financial eligibility and merits depend on the proceeding for which help is needed.

What you need help with	Legal-aid position in outline	What to do
Reporting a crime or acting as a prosecution witness	You do not apply for legal aid to fund the police or CPS prosecution. The prosecution is brought by the state. ISVA support is free and independent of the prosecution.	Ask police or a SARC for an ISVA referral. Seek separate qualified advice if you need advice about privacy, another proceeding or your own legal exposure.
Non-molestation or occupation order	These protective injunction proceedings are within civil legal-aid scope, subject to the applicable means and merits rules. For an order protecting a person from domestic abuse, the Legal Aid Agency can waive the usual upper financial eligibility limits, although a contribution may still be required.	Contact a family legal-aid provider promptly and say if the application is urgent. Do not assume that being above an ordinary income threshold ends the enquiry.
Private child-arrangements or related family proceedings	Usually requires prescribed evidence of domestic abuse or child abuse, plus means and merits eligibility. The evidence rules are technical; a general account without an approved form of evidence may not be enough.	Use the current Government legal-aid evidence guide and ask an authorised evidence provider for the prescribed letter or record.
Civil damages claim arising from a sexual offence	Paragraph 39 of Schedule 1 to LASPO can bring civil legal services for a victim in relation to a sexual offence within scope. Means, merits, proportionality and the particular claim still have to be assessed.	Ask a solicitor experienced in sexual-abuse civil claims about legal aid, limitation and other funding methods without delay.
Exceptional case outside ordinary scope	Exceptional Case Funding may be available in limited circumstances where failure to fund would breach, or risk breaching, Convention or retained enforceable rights. It is not a general hardship discretion.	Ask a legal-aid specialist whether an application is realistically available on your facts.

Evidence for legal aid in a private family case

The Legal Aid Agency’s private family evidence guidance, version 15 (15 June 2026) lists the evidence that can be accepted. Depending on the route, examples include:

an arrest, caution, charge or conviction for a relevant domestic-abuse offence;
a protective injunction, undertaking or relevant Family Court finding;
specified evidence from a doctor, other health professional or referral to specialist support;
evidence from a MARAC, IDVA, ISVA or approved domestic-abuse support organisation;
specified evidence from a local authority, housing officer or other public authority; or
evidence relevant to child protection or abuse under the applicable route.

A police report which ended without an arrest, caution or charge may not, by itself, satisfy the arrest/caution/charge evidence category. Another permitted route—such as an appropriate ISVA, healthcare or specialist-service letter—may be available. The evidence must contain the information the regulations require. Government sample evidence letters can help the professional provide the correct details.

Financial eligibility

Financial rules change. Under the civil legal-aid means guidance current from April 2026, receipt of Universal Credit can passport the income assessment, but capital is still assessed. For non-passported applicants, the ordinary upper figures include £2,657 gross monthly income, £733 disposable monthly income and £8,000 disposable capital, subject to detailed allowances, aggregation and exceptions. A person may qualify but have to pay a contribution.

Do not self-reject based on a headline figure. The type of case, household circumstances, disputed resources, property, benefits and the domestic-abuse protective-order rules can change the result. Use the Government’s legal-aid checker and ask a legal-aid provider to assess scope, evidence, means and merits.

13. A practical evidence-to-court toolkit

A court needs relevant evidence linked to an issue it must decide. It rarely needs hundreds of unexplained screenshots. The following structure helps a litigant in person turn a large history into a usable case presentation.

Step 1: Separate preservation from presentation

Preserve the complete material. For a hearing, select only what is relevant to the pleaded allegations, welfare issue, risk or order sought. Keep a clear reference back to the complete source.

Step 2: Define the decision

Write one sentence identifying what the court must decide. For example: whether specific domestic-abuse allegations require findings because they affect the safety and structure of child contact. This keeps the evidence focused on a judicial decision, not simply the history’s emotional weight.

Step 3: Use an allegation-and-evidence schedule only if directed

No.	Date/period	Specific alleged act	Evidence reference	Response	Relevance to child/risk	Finding sought
1	May–July 2024	Concise fact capable of being admitted or denied—not a broad label.	Statement §; exhibit page; full export reference; third-party record.	Space for the other party’s concise response.	Explain the welfare or future-risk issue.	A precise factual proposition.

Do not create a sprawling schedule if the court has ordered a different format. Follow the current order and local directions.

Step 4: Make the statement readable and provable

Identify the relationship, children, current orders and purpose of the statement.
Give a short overview of the alleged pattern and why it is relevant.
Set out the necessary incidents in chronological numbered paragraphs.
For each incident, distinguish the act, your response, the consequence, impact and supporting source.
Address apparently inconsistent conduct, including friendly or sexual messages, directly and factually.
Explain the child’s experience without attributing adult conclusions to the child.
End with the directions or orders sought and why they are proportionate.
Use the required statement of truth and comply with page limits, filing dates and service directions.

Step 5: Test every important sentence

Ask: Is this something I saw, heard or experienced? Is it supported by a document? Is it what another person told me? Or is it my inference? The answer determines how it should be written and evidenced. Avoid asserting that an allegation “proves” a criminal offence when no court has made that finding.

JSH Law’s existing resources on chronologies and timelines and organising evidence and exhibits provide further practical structure for litigants in person.

14. Privacy, publication and the careful use of AI

Do not litigate the case on social media

Public posts can identify a complainant, another alleged victim or a child; alert a suspect to evidence; affect safety; breach a Family Court reporting restriction; or be used as evidence. Sexual-offence anonymity protects the complainant from being identified by others, but it does not give anyone a general right to publish allegations, private images, confidential documents or information from children proceedings.

Information from Family Court proceedings may only be shared within the rules, orders and statutory exceptions. Check the current Government guidance on sharing information outside Family Court and the terms of every order before disclosing documents to a journalist, campaign group, friend or online service.

AI can organise, but it cannot decide consent

Automated sentiment analysis may label appeasing or sexual language as “positive” without understanding fear, irony, a threat in another thread or a consequence established over months. AI may help create a first-pass index or identify dates, but every output must be checked against the original. It should not decide whether a person consented, whether a witness is truthful or which allegation a court should find.

Do not upload unredacted Family Court papers, intimate images, medical records or children’s data to a public AI tool.
Use anonymised working copies and the minimum necessary extract.
Check every quotation, date, source reference and legal citation manually.
Disclose AI use if a court direction, professional duty or the circumstances require it.
Keep the human-authored final document consistent with your own evidence and understanding.

Which route does what?

Route	Main purpose	Who makes the decision?	Key point
Police/CPS and criminal court	Investigate and, where the tests are met, prosecute an offence.	Police, CPS, then criminal court.	Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Family Court—children	Determine facts necessary for child welfare and manage future risk.	Family Court.	Facts are determined on the balance of probabilities; welfare is paramount.
Non-molestation/occupation order	Provide personal or housing-related protection.	Family Court.	Can be urgent; no court fee for FL401.
CICA	Tariff compensation for eligible criminal injury.	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.	Usually apply within two years and report to police; no conviction is required.
Civil damages claim	Seek compensation from a legally responsible defendant.	Civil court or settlement.	Limitation, evidence, funding, costs and enforceability need specialist assessment.

Frequently asked questions

1. I said yes and helped arrange the encounters. Can it still have been sexual abuse?

Potentially, yes. The legal question is whether you agreed by choice with freedom and capacity at the time of the specific act. Messages and arrangements are relevant, but they must be assessed with the surrounding pattern, feared consequences and the other person’s reasonable belief in consent. Participation does not automatically prove consent, and an allegation does not automatically prove an offence.

2. Does marriage or a long relationship amount to consent?

No. Marriage, a relationship, earlier sex or previous participation in swinging does not provide continuing consent. Consent is specific and can be withdrawn.

3. I never said “no”. Can I still report?

Yes. There is no legal requirement to have communicated a refusal. Explain what you did, what you feared, how the other person behaved and why you say you did not have freedom to choose.

4. Can I report sexual offences that happened years ago?

Yes. There is no general time limit for reporting rape or another sexual offence to the police. Report as soon as you feel able and identify any surviving records. The law applied will depend on when the conduct occurred.

5. Are the other people automatically offenders if my partner coerced me?

No. Each person’s conduct, knowledge and reasonable belief in consent must be assessed individually. Tell police what each participant said, saw and did, including any steps taken to check your consent.

6. What if the police take no further action?

Ask for the written decision and identify whether it was made by police or the CPS. A police Victims’ Right to Review request should normally be made within three months. The CPS asks for a request within 10 working days of its decision letter so that it can act promptly. Ask an ISVA for support.

7. Do I need a solicitor to report to the police?

No. You can report directly, and you do not need a lawyer to ask for a Victims’ Right to Review. Independent legal advice may still be useful where there are linked family proceedings, privacy issues, a civil claim or a risk that you may be treated as a suspect in relation to other conduct.

8. Will I qualify for legal aid?

Possibly. Protective injunctions are within scope, and private family cases may be covered where the prescribed domestic-abuse or child-abuse evidence, means and merits tests are met. A civil claim relating to a sexual offence can also be within scope under paragraph 39 of Schedule 1 to LASPO. Eligibility is case-specific and a contribution may be required.

9. Is a police report enough evidence for family legal aid?

Not always. A report which did not lead to an arrest, caution or charge may not satisfy that particular evidence category. Another prescribed form of evidence, such as a compliant ISVA, healthcare or specialist domestic-abuse service letter, may be available.

10. Can I get an urgent protective order and is there a court fee?

Form FL401 can be used to seek a non-molestation order, an occupation order or both, and there is no court fee. A without-notice application may be possible where the court is satisfied that the legal test is met. Explain the urgency and risk clearly and consider Form C8 if your address must be protected.

11. Do I need a criminal charge before raising this in the Family Court?

No. The Family Court can determine relevant disputed facts on the balance of probabilities. A charge, conviction or police report is not a prerequisite, although the court will assess the evidence fairly and an allegation is not the same as a finding.

12. Which Family Court form should I use?

Form C1A is used to provide information about harm and domestic abuse when making or responding to certain Children Act applications. C100, C2, a response form, FL401 or C8 may also be relevant, depending on what proceeding already exists and what order or direction is needed. Check the current order and official form guidance.

13. Does a child have to witness the sexual conduct for it to matter?

No. A child who sees, hears or experiences the effects of domestic abuse can be a victim under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Explain the actual effect on the child rather than assuming an effect or exposing the child to unnecessary adult detail.

14. What if intimate images were uploaded or used to threaten me?

Preserve the URL, username, date, messages and platform report without republishing the image. Tell police. For relevant conduct on or after 31 January 2024, section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 may apply to sharing or threatening to share intimate images without consent, depending on the facts and intent. Earlier conduct is governed by the law then in force.

15. Can I claim compensation without a conviction?

A CICA award does not require a conviction, but the statutory eligibility and evidence requirements still apply. The incident must normally be reported to police and the application is usually required within two years, subject to exceptions. A separate civil claim also does not depend automatically on a criminal conviction, but limitation and costs need urgent specialist advice.

16. Can AI analyse all my messages and prove coercive control?

AI can help index dates or group material, but it cannot reliably decide consent, coercion or credibility. Sentiment labels can misunderstand appeasement and context. Keep the originals, verify every output, protect confidential data and let the court assess the evidence.

How JSH Law can support a litigant in person

If this history is relevant to a Family Court case, JSH Law can provide practical litigation support with:

turning a long history into a focused chronology;
organising messages and exhibits while retaining clear source references;
preparing a workable allegation schedule where the court has directed one;
structuring statements, position statements and hearing notes in the litigant’s own case;
identifying gaps, contradictions and apparently “friendly” messages that need to be addressed;
preparing for Cafcass discussions and court hearings; and
helping a litigant understand orders, deadlines and the practical presentation of their evidence.

JSH Law does not investigate crimes, decide whether an offence was committed, guarantee findings or replace a police officer, ISVA, regulated solicitor or barrister. For support with the presentation of your own Family Court case, use the JSH Law contact page.

Primary law and official guidance

Background reporting: BBC Sounds, Swingers; BBC News, original investigation; BBC News, follow-up reporting.

Florida Has Approved a Public Domestic Abuse Database. Should England and Wales Follow?

July 27, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster/by jessica susan hill

Florida has approved something England and Wales does not have: a publicly searchable domestic abuse offender database.

On 21 July 2026, Volusia County Council voted 6–1 to create Florida’s first county-operated database of this kind.

The final scheme will include people with a single qualifying conviction and look back over the preceding ten years.

My immediate reaction is that accessible information could save lives.

A perpetrator may conceal previous convictions, describe every former partner as “crazy” and move from one relationship to another while each new partner sees only a fraction of the pattern.

But there is an equally important warning:

A blank search result does not mean safe.

Most domestic abuse never results in a conviction. Some abuse is never reported. Some reports do not lead to charges, and some cases never reach trial. A public database can reveal only the records it contains.

England and Wales currently relies upon Clare’s Law. That system can support targeted police disclosure using intelligence and reported patterns as well as convictions—but its operation remains inconsistent.

My latest article examines what Florida has approved, how it compares with Clare’s Law and why safeguarding must never be outsourced to a search box.

Information matters. So do safety planning, enforcement, multi-agency intelligence and the active management of people presenting serious risk.

Domestic abuse | Safeguarding | Law reform

Florida Has Approved a Public Domestic Abuse Database. Should England and Wales Follow?

Volusia County has voted to create Florida’s first county-operated public domestic abuse offender database. The final scheme will extend to people with a single qualifying conviction and will look back over the preceding ten years. It is a bold attempt to make risk visible—but it carries a serious danger. A blank search result must never be mistaken for proof that somebody is safe.

By Jessica Susan Hill | JSH Law | Updated 27 July 2026

The short answer

A carefully designed public convictions database could give some people an earlier warning about a partner’s proven history of domestic abuse. But it would capture only a fraction of abusive behaviour. It should supplement—not replace—Clare’s Law, specialist safety planning, effective enforcement and active management of serial or high-risk perpetrators.

Does the UK have a public domestic abuse register?

No single publicly searchable domestic abuse convictions register operates across the UK. In England and Wales, the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme—commonly known as Clare’s Law—allows police to make a targeted disclosure where information indicates that somebody may be at risk from a current or former partner. Unlike a convictions-only database, police may consider convictions, allegations, cases which did not proceed, intelligence and patterns of concerning behaviour.

Imagine discovering, only after you have moved in with somebody, become financially dependent upon them or had a child together, that they have previously been convicted of abusing a partner.

The record existed. The court knew. The police knew. It may even have been technically available somewhere within a public court system. But you did not know where to look, which name to search, which county held the record or what the legal description of the offence meant.

That is the problem Volusia County in Florida is trying to address.

The instinct behind the decision is understandable. Domestic abuse often depends upon secrecy, fragmentation and impression management. A person may conceal previous convictions, minimise past conduct or tell each new partner that every former partner was dishonest, unstable or vindictive.

A searchable official record can interrupt that narrative. It can place verified information into the hands of somebody who may otherwise be making life-changing decisions without it.

But a register also creates difficult questions. Who should be included? How long should a name remain visible? What happens when records are wrong or a conviction is overturned? How do we avoid identifying victims indirectly? Most importantly, how do we stop “no result” being interpreted as “no risk”?

A database can reveal a conviction. It cannot certify that a person is safe.

What has Volusia County approved?

On 21 July 2026, Volusia County Council voted by six votes to one to create what will become Florida’s first county-operated Domestic Violence Offender Database.

The original proposal focused on people with two or more domestic violence convictions. During the meeting, the Council amended that threshold so that the database will also cover a person with a single qualifying conviction. It also agreed that qualifying convictions from the preceding ten years should be included.

The database is not yet operational. County staff are now working with the Clerk of the Circuit Court to develop it, and an anticipated launch date has not yet been announced.

According to Volusia County’s official announcement , the database will consolidate existing public-record information about qualifying domestic or dating violence convictions. It is intended to synchronise regularly with the Clerk’s case-management system.

Information displayed is expected to include:

the convicted person’s full legal name;
date of birth;
the most recent qualifying booking photograph;
applicable case numbers;
references to the relevant Florida statutes; and
offence dates.

Victims’ details are not intended to form part of the public database.

The information is already available in public court records, but that does not make it practically accessible. Court systems can be fragmented, searches can be confusing and the legal significance of an offence may not be obvious to somebody without specialist knowledge.

Making information theoretically available is not the same as making it practically usable.

A properly designed database could turn scattered court data into information an ordinary person can find and understand. That could help somebody investigate the background of a new partner or a person being considered as a carer for a vulnerable family member.

But it will remain a record of qualifying convictions—not a certificate of safety for everybody whose name does not appear.

The Tennessee model behind the Florida decision

Volusia County’s proposal was influenced by Tennessee’s “Savanna’s Law”. That law created a statewide public registry of persistent domestic violence offenders maintained by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

Tennessee’s threshold is narrower than the final Volusia County approach. Registration is triggered where a person is convicted of an offence committed against a domestic abuse victim and has at least one previous conviction for an offence against a domestic abuse victim.

The public Tennessee registry may include identifying information such as the person’s name, date of birth, conviction date, county or counties of conviction and photograph. It does not publish the person’s address, social security number, driving-licence number or other state or federal identification number.

The Tennessee legislation also uses different registration periods according to the number of previous convictions. It applies to relevant offences occurring on or after 1 January 2026, although the earlier conviction used to establish persistent offending need not have occurred after that date.

That distinction matters. Volusia County has chosen a broader entry threshold—one qualifying conviction—and a retrospective ten-year search period. It has therefore moved beyond merely copying Tennessee’s persistent-offender model.

What does England and Wales have instead?

England and Wales does not currently operate a public, searchable domestic abuse convictions register.

The principal disclosure mechanism is the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, widely known as Clare’s Law. It was rolled out nationally in 2014 and its guidance was placed on a statutory footing through section 77 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

Clare’s Law has two routes:

The Right to Ask

A person, relative, friend or relevant professional can ask the police to check whether a current or former partner has a violent or abusive history. A third-party applicant will not necessarily receive the disclosure; the information is normally given to the person at risk or somebody best placed to protect them.

The Right to Know

Police can consider making a proactive disclosure where information comes to their attention indicating that somebody may be at risk from a current or former partner. The person at risk does not first have to make an application.

This is not a general right to obtain somebody else’s criminal record. Police must consider whether disclosure is necessary, reasonable and proportionate to protect a person from harm. The decision must comply with the applicable common-law principles, data-protection law and human-rights law.

Importantly, the police assessment is not restricted to convictions. The statutory guidance permits consideration of convictions, allegations, cases which did not proceed, intelligence about previous violent or abusive offending, patterns of stalking or coercive control and concerning behaviour towards the current person at risk.

That makes Clare’s Law potentially more informative than a convictions-only public register. It can bring together a wider picture and deliver information with a risk assessment and safety planning.

The maximum suggested timescale for completing a DVDS investigation is 28 days, unless an extension is required and justified by exceptional circumstances. Where an immediate or imminent risk is identified, safeguarding action should not wait for the ordinary process to finish.

Clare’s Law is not operating consistently

The difficulty is the gap between the scheme on paper and its delivery in practice.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has reported wide variations between police forces, inconsistent decision-making, failures to follow the guidance and underuse of the proactive Right to Know route. The Commissioner also found that disclosures are not always delivered sensitively or with adequate information about support and next steps.

The Government’s 2026 violence and abuse action plan expressly acknowledges that more must be done to make Clare’s Law work for victims and survivors. It promises a clearer and more consistent framework, a review of operational barriers and a digital tool to support police disclosure decisions.

Those improvements are welcome, but they are also an admission that access to potentially life-saving information still depends too heavily on where a person lives and how effectively their local force operates the scheme.

Public register, Clare’s Law or active perpetrator management?

These are not interchangeable systems. They perform different jobs.

System	Main purpose	Information used	Principal weakness
Public convictions register	Allows the public to identify specified convictions.	Proven court convictions within the register’s defined scope.	Misses unreported, uncharged and unproved abuse and may create false reassurance.
Clare’s Law	Provides a targeted disclosure to protect an identified person.	Convictions, allegations, police intelligence, cases which did not proceed and relevant patterns of behaviour.	Delays, inconsistent application and dependence on police decision-making.
Active perpetrator management	Identifies, monitors, disrupts and manages people presenting serious or repeated risk.	Live multi-agency information, risk indicators, offending patterns and breaches.	Inconsistent national coverage, capacity and resources.

A public register can help somebody make an informed decision. Clare’s Law can provide a fuller, targeted disclosure. Active perpetrator management is intended to make agencies take responsibility for reducing the danger.

A credible national response requires all three functions: accessible information, safe disclosure and active risk management.

The case for a public domestic abuse register

1. It could provide an early warning

Domestic abuse perpetrators can be extremely skilled at impression management. A new partner may initially see charm, attentiveness and apparent vulnerability. Previous relationships may be described as involving a “crazy ex”, a false allegation or a former partner who supposedly turned the children against them.

An official record can cut through that narrative. It gives the potential victim something independent against which to assess what they are being told.

2. It recognises patterns rather than isolated incidents

Domestic abuse is frequently pattern-based. The criminal justice system, however, can process each assault, threat, breach or report as a separate event. A register of repeat convictions can make part of the pattern visible.

That is particularly important where the perpetrator moves from one relationship to another, leaving each victim with only part of the overall picture.

3. It returns some information to the person facing the risk

Too often, agencies know more about the danger than the person living with it. There may be previous police call-outs, protective orders, convictions, probation involvement or information held across different regions.

A public database challenges the assumption that information about proven convictions should remain difficult to find until a potential victim knows enough to ask the right agency the right question.

4. It could make public information genuinely accessible

“It is already public” is not a complete answer. Information scattered across unfamiliar court systems, filed under technical offence descriptions or divided between areas may be functionally inaccessible to an ordinary person.

A central database can reduce the practical and digital barriers between a person and information that may affect their safety.

5. It sends a public message about accountability

Domestic abuse is still minimised as a private relationship problem. A formal public record makes clear that a domestic abuse conviction is a serious public-protection matter with consequences extending beyond the immediate sentence.

The serious limitations of a convictions-only register

1. Most domestic abuse never results in a conviction

This is the central problem.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has reported that fewer than one in five victims and survivors report to the police. Even after a report, a case may not lead to arrest, charge, prosecution or conviction.

A University of Essex study reported that only 4.4% of domestic abuse perpetrators receive convictions. A register restricted to convicted offenders would therefore capture only a small fraction of those causing harm.

The most important warning on any public database should be this:

“No result means no qualifying record was found. It does not mean that this person is safe or has never behaved abusively.”

2. It risks creating false reassurance

A person may search a new partner’s name, find nothing and assume that the relationship is safe. But the individual may have been reported without charge, convicted in another jurisdiction, used a different name, moved between areas or never previously come to police attention.

A county-level database is especially vulnerable to geographical gaps unless it is linked effectively with records from other counties and states.

A register can only confirm the information it contains. It cannot certify good character and it cannot predict future behaviour.

3. A list does not manage the risk

Publishing a name does not monitor an offender, enforce an order, prevent contact, challenge coercive behaviour or respond to a breach.

There is a danger that governments announce a register, present it as decisive action and leave underfunded police, probation and domestic abuse services struggling with the same operational failures.

Information is useful. Information without enforcement is not protection.

4. Disclosure can increase danger

A victim who discovers a partner’s previous convictions may confront them or attempt to leave. An abusive person who believes they are losing control may escalate their behaviour.

Clare’s Law at least requires consideration of how, when and where information should be disclosed and what support should accompany it. A person searching a public website may receive life-changing information while alone, without a safety plan and potentially on a device monitored by the perpetrator.

5. The burden must not be transferred to victims

No victim should later be asked, “Why did you not check the register?” or “Why did you stay after finding out?”

People stay in abusive relationships for complex and rational reasons: fear, financial dependence, housing, immigration status, concern for children, disability, isolation, threats, surveillance and the genuine risk associated with leaving.

A register must increase institutional responsibility, not become another mechanism for judging a victim’s decisions.

6. Accuracy, identification and due process matter

Names and dates of birth can be similar. Records can contain errors. Convictions can be overturned. People may change their names or use aliases.

Any public system would require reliable identity matching, clear definitions, correction and appeal procedures, appropriate removal periods and prompt updates following an overturned conviction.

It must also consider the risk of identifying a victim indirectly, particularly in small communities or widely reported cases, even where the victim’s name is formally excluded.

7. Victims themselves can be criminalised

Domestic abuse cases do not always enter the criminal justice system in a neat form. A victim may be arrested following a retaliatory allegation, may use force while defending themselves or may accept a plea under pressure.

That does not justify secrecy about properly proved offending. It does mean that any register needs safeguards, accurate contextual classification and a meaningful procedure for challenging wrongful inclusion.

8. Privacy and rehabilitation cannot simply be ignored

Public protection may justify disclosing relevant information, but an open-ended public record engages legitimate questions about privacy, rehabilitation, spent convictions, proportionality and data protection.

In England and Wales, any proposed register would need a clear legislative basis and carefully defined rules about qualifying offences, duration, access, accuracy, review and removal. It would also have to be designed consistently with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Data Protection Act 2018 and applicable human-rights principles.

Volusia County chose one conviction—not two

The original proposal would have required at least two qualifying domestic violence convictions. The Council ultimately decided that one conviction should be enough for inclusion.

The argument is straightforward: requiring two convictions means waiting for a further offence, potentially involving another victim, before making the first conviction readily visible.

But conviction numbers alone do not necessarily measure risk. One conviction for an extremely serious offence may indicate greater danger than two convictions for less serious conduct.

A proper risk assessment must also examine escalation, stalking, strangulation, threats to kill, obsessive behaviour, access to weapons, separation, coercive control and repeated breaches of protective orders.

My view is that agencies should never wait for a second conviction before assessing and managing somebody who presents a serious risk.

For public listing, the legal criteria must remain precise, evidence-based and subject to appropriate correction and review procedures. Relevant non-conviction intelligence should remain available for lawful targeted disclosure and professional risk management rather than being published indiscriminately.

What should England and Wales do?

We should pay attention to what is happening in Florida and Tennessee, but we should not simply copy a public list and call the safeguarding problem solved.

1. Make Clare’s Law work consistently

There should be a simple national application route, clear urgent procedures, compliance with the 28-day maximum timescale unless a justified extension is necessary and proper oversight of forces that repeatedly delay or refuse appropriate disclosures.

The Right to Know must be genuinely proactive. A victim should not have to discover that Clare’s Law exists and make the perfect application before police consider warning them.

2. Create national, intelligence-led perpetrator management

The priority should be identifying and managing high-risk, high-harm and serial perpetrators across police-force boundaries.

That requires police, probation, courts, local authorities, health services and specialist domestic abuse organisations to share relevant information lawfully and act upon it. A person’s risk should not disappear because they move to another area or begin a relationship with somebody new.

3. Join up court and police systems

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has highlighted gaps between court databases and police systems. Police are not always automatically notified when protective orders are made and served.

That is a fundamental safeguarding failure. A person reporting a breach during a crisis should not be required to prove the existence of an order because public agencies have failed to share it.

4. Enforce protective measures

Bail conditions, non-molestation orders, restraining orders and domestic abuse protection measures are only meaningful if breaches trigger a prompt and effective response.

A database which records yesterday’s conviction cannot compensate for failing to act on today’s breach.

5. Build support around disclosure

Information should be accompanied by specialist safety planning, housing advice, legal information, immigration advice where necessary and support for affected children.

The objective is not simply to tell somebody that they are at risk. It is to help them become safer.

6. Measure outcomes, not searches

Any register or disclosure system should be independently evaluated. Success cannot be measured by the number of names published or website searches performed.

We need to know whether disclosures were timely, whether victims received support, whether further harm was prevented, whether breaches were enforced and whether high-risk perpetrators were actively managed.

7. Consider a carefully limited public register as one part of the system

There is a principled case for making specified domestic abuse convictions easier to find, particularly where the information is already public but practically inaccessible.

Any proposal for England and Wales should be developed with survivors, specialist services, police, probation, data-protection experts and justice professionals. It would require clear qualifying criteria, strong identity safeguards, a correction and appeal process, defined retention periods, warnings about the limits of the data and immediate routes to confidential support.

Safeguarding must not be outsourced to a search box.

What if you are concerned about a current or former partner?

You do not need to wait for physical violence, a conviction or a crisis before seeking help.

Trust patterns, not promises. Repeated monitoring, intimidation, isolation, financial restriction, threats, humiliation and pressure can form part of domestic abuse even where there has been no assault.
Consider making a Clare’s Law application. You can contact the police under the Right to Ask. A relative, friend or relevant professional may also raise concerns, although any disclosure will usually be made to the person at risk or somebody best placed to protect them.
Do not treat a blank check as proof of safety. Continue to take your own experience, warning signs and the wider pattern seriously.
Do not confront somebody about information if doing so may increase risk. Seek specialist safety advice first and plan any separation carefully.
Preserve evidence safely. Keep a chronology, messages, photographs, police reference numbers, medical evidence, details of witnesses and copies of relevant orders somewhere the perpetrator cannot access.
Use a safe device where possible. Consider location sharing, linked accounts, cloud access, browser history, password access and monitoring software.
Seek urgent protection where necessary. Depending on the circumstances, protective options may include police safeguarding measures, a non-molestation order, an occupation order, bail conditions or a restraining order. Contact emergency services if there is immediate danger.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a public domestic abuse register in the UK?

No single publicly searchable domestic abuse convictions register operates across the UK. In England and Wales, targeted disclosures may instead be made through Clare’s Law.

What is Clare’s Law?

Clare’s Law is the commonly used name for the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme. It allows somebody to ask police whether a current or former partner presents a known risk and allows police to consider making a proactive disclosure where they identify a risk.

Who can make a Clare’s Law application?

A person who is concerned about a current or former partner can apply. A relative, friend or relevant professional can also raise a concern. Information will ordinarily be disclosed only to the person at risk or another person best placed to safeguard them.

How long should a Clare’s Law application take?

The statutory guidance gives a suggested maximum of 28 days from start to finish, unless exceptional circumstances make a justified extension necessary. Immediate safeguarding action should be taken where an urgent risk is identified.

Does a blank Clare’s Law check mean that somebody is safe?

No. A lack of disclosed information does not prove that somebody has never behaved abusively. Abuse may never have been reported, charged, prosecuted or recorded, and police disclosure decisions depend upon the information available and the applicable legal test.

Could England and Wales create a domestic abuse register?

Parliament could legislate for a register, but its scope would require careful consideration of public protection, accuracy, rehabilitation, privacy, data protection, human rights and the risk of indirectly identifying victims.

Would a public register replace Clare’s Law?

It should not. A public register would ordinarily show qualifying convictions, while Clare’s Law can support a targeted assessment using a broader range of relevant information. Public information, safe disclosure and active perpetrator management perform different functions.

Conclusion

Volusia County’s decision deserves attention because it rejects the idea that a proven history of domestic abuse should remain buried in difficult-to-navigate court records.

The approved database could help some people identify risk earlier. I support its development as an additional warning tool, provided it includes strong accuracy safeguards, clear explanations of its limitations and direct routes to confidential support.

But it cannot be the centrepiece of domestic abuse prevention.

By the time somebody has accumulated even one conviction, the system may already have failed a victim and their children. Where a register requires repeat offending, it may be waiting for further harm before making the pattern readily visible.

The real task is to identify patterns sooner, share information lawfully, warn people safely, manage those presenting serious risk and enforce protective measures when they are breached.

The lesson for England and Wales is not simply that we need more names on a public list. It is that information about risk must reach the right person at the right time—and that public authorities must then take responsibility for acting upon it.

Do you need help presenting a pattern of domestic abuse clearly?

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led support to people navigating family proceedings, domestic abuse allegations and safeguarding concerns. I can help with chronologies, evidence organisation, witness statements, schedules of incidents, non-molestation order paperwork, Cafcass preparation, hearing documents and the clear presentation of patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour.

If your evidence currently feels scattered, overwhelming or difficult to explain, the first step is often to turn individual incidents into a clear, dated and properly evidenced pattern.

Book a consultation

Sources and further reading

Legal information notice: This article provides general legal and policy information relating to England and Wales. It does not constitute legal advice. The discussion of Florida and Tennessee is comparative commentary only. Domestic abuse cases are fact-sensitive, and appropriate safeguarding or legal action will depend upon the circumstances.

About the author: Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law, a legal consultant and family justice commentator with a particular interest in domestic abuse, coercive control, safeguarding, evidence analysis, access to justice and practical support for litigants in person.

Children, Character and Adult Responsibility: A JSH Law Response to Katharine Birbalsingh

June 29, 2026/0 Comments/in Children and Family Justice/by jessica susan hill

Katharine Birbalsingh’s speech is uncomfortable because it forces us to ask a question many adults would rather avoid: what are we actually teaching children about responsibility, duty, truth, resilience and moral character? This is not just an education debate. From a family justice and safeguarding perspective, it goes much deeper. Children are growing up in a world where adult conflict is often normalised, social media shapes identity before maturity has formed, boundaries are confused with harm, and “listening to the child” is sometimes misused as an excuse for adults to step back from their own responsibility. Children need rights, protection and compassion. But they also need adults who are brave enough to lead, set boundaries, tell the truth, model self-control and keep adult problems away from childhood.

Children • Safeguarding • Family Justice • Education

“This Is a Civilisational Failure”: What Katharine Birbalsingh’s Speech Gets Right About Children, Character and Adult Responsibility

Children do not become resilient, responsible and emotionally safe by accident. They need adults, families, schools, courts and communities who are willing to provide boundaries, truth, stability, moral clarity and protection.

Summary

Katharine Birbalsingh’s ARC26 speech, titled “This is a civilisational failure!”, argues that the West’s moral crisis is connected to the values adults have taught children. Her focus is education, culture, duty, responsibility and moral character. This article looks at that argument from a JSH Law perspective: family justice, safeguarding, children’s welfare, social media, parental responsibility, coercive control, litigation abuse and the reality of what happens when adults fail to provide children with safe, stable and morally coherent leadership.

Katharine Birbalsingh is not a neutral figure in public debate. She is known for strong views on discipline, education, culture and responsibility. Her school, Michaela Community School in London, has attracted both admiration and criticism for its strict ethos and high expectations. Ofsted’s 2023 report recorded that the school continued to be outstanding, noting exceptionally high expectations for behaviour, academic work and personal development.

That does not mean every person will agree with every word she says. They will not. That is not the point.

The point is that she is asking a question many adults would rather avoid:

What are we actually teaching children about life, duty, truth, responsibility, resilience and moral agency?

That question matters deeply in family justice.

Because by the time families arrive in the family court, the issue is rarely just one isolated argument, one missed contact, one unpleasant message, one school dispute, one failed handover or one parenting disagreement. What the court often sees is the end result of patterns: adult conflict, poor boundaries, coercive behaviour, emotional dysregulation, unsafe communication, entrenched grievance, parental alienating behaviours, domestic abuse, social media escalation, financial pressure and adults using children as witnesses, messengers, weapons or emotional support.

That is where the phrase “civilisational failure” lands differently.

It is not just about schools.

It is about what happens when adults abandon their responsibility to form, protect and guide children.

Children Need More Than Rights Language

Children have rights. That matters. Children must be listened to. Their wishes and feelings matter. Their safety matters. Their identity matters. Their emotional wellbeing matters. Their autonomy develops as they mature.

But children also need adults to understand something that modern systems sometimes avoid saying clearly:

Children are still children.

They are not miniature adults. They should not be expected to carry adult conflict, adult ideology, adult loneliness, adult emotional need or adult decision-making. They should not be placed in the middle of parental warfare and then told it is “their choice”. They should not be handed a smartphone, exposed to adult content, pressured by algorithms and then blamed for becoming anxious, reactive, sexualised, aggressive, withdrawn or confused.

A child’s voice matters. But a child’s voice is not the same thing as adult abdication.

The safeguarding point

Listening to children does not mean abandoning adult responsibility. A child can be heard, respected and taken seriously without being made responsible for adult decisions, parental conflict or unsafe family dynamics.

In family court language, this distinction is crucial. The court may consider a child’s wishes and feelings, having regard to age and understanding, but the child’s welfare remains the court’s paramount consideration when deciding questions about upbringing under section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

That is not accidental. It reflects a hard truth: children may have strong wishes, but adults and courts still have a duty to assess safety, context, pressure, manipulation, welfare and long-term impact.

The Problem With Outsourcing Character Formation

One of the strongest themes in Birbalsingh’s speech is the idea that children are being taught to see the world through narrow and destructive frames: oppressor and oppressed, grievance and blame, identity and victimhood.

That point needs careful handling.

There are real victims. Domestic abuse is real. Coercive control is real. Racism is real. misogyny is real. poverty is real. disability discrimination is real. institutional failure is real. Children who are harmed should not be told to “toughen up” while adults protect the systems or people who failed them.

But there is also a serious danger when children are taught that identity alone explains everything, that personal responsibility is oppressive, that boundaries are harm, that discipline is abuse, that all discomfort is trauma, and that the correct response to difficulty is always blame.

That is not empowerment.

It leaves children fragile, reactive and dependent on external validation.

Real safeguarding is not about wrapping children in cotton wool. It is about helping them become safe, capable, truthful, resilient and morally responsible people.

A better balance

Children need both compassion and accountability.

They need both protection and resilience.

They need both rights and responsibilities.

They need adults who can say: “What happened to you matters, and what you do next also matters.”

Boundaries Are Not Abuse

This is where the conversation becomes difficult, particularly for those of us working around domestic abuse, coercive control and safeguarding.

We need to be precise.

Boundaries are not the same as control.

Discipline is not the same as domination.

Authority is not the same as coercion.

But abusive adults often misuse the language of discipline, respect, culture, religion, family values and parental authority to justify harmful behaviour. That is why we must distinguish healthy structure from coercive control.

Healthy boundary	Coercive control
Clear, age-appropriate rules explained calmly.	Rules used to frighten, isolate, humiliate or dominate.
Consistent consequences linked to behaviour.	Punishment that is unpredictable, disproportionate or designed to break the person down.
Encouraging responsibility and repair.	Demanding submission, silence or compliance.
Protecting a child from harm.	Using “protection” as an excuse to monitor, isolate or control.
Adult authority exercised for the child’s welfare.	Adult power exercised for the adult’s ego, image or control.

Family courts, schools, social workers, Cafcass and professionals must be able to hold both truths at once.

Children need boundaries.

Children also need protection from adults who weaponise boundaries.

Family Justice Shows Us What Happens When Adults Fail

In family proceedings, the court often has to pick through the wreckage of adult failure.

A parent refuses to communicate safely.

A child is told too much.

A parent presents adult grievances as the child’s wishes.

Contact becomes a battleground.

Allegations are minimised, exaggerated, ignored or weaponised.

Domestic abuse is reframed as “conflict”.

Coercive control is missed because professionals look for single incidents rather than patterns.

A child learns that love means loyalty tests, emotional pressure, secrecy or fear.

This is why character formation cannot be treated as a soft issue. It has legal, emotional and safeguarding consequences.

The family court reality

When adults do not regulate themselves, children are often forced to adapt around adult dysfunction. That adaptation may look like “choice”, “maturity” or “strong wishes”, but sometimes it is survival, pressure, loyalty conflict or emotional exhaustion.

That is why evidence-led family justice matters.

Courts need more than accusation and counter-accusation. They need clear chronology, patterns of behaviour, examples, impact on the child, safeguarding analysis and practical proposals. Professionals need to ask not only, “What does the child say?” but also:

What has the child been exposed to?
Who has had influence over the child’s narrative?
Is the child being placed in a loyalty conflict?
Has one parent used litigation, money, communication or contact arrangements as pressure?
Are there patterns of intimidation, monitoring, isolation or emotional manipulation?
What would make this child safer, calmer and more secure?

Social Media Has Changed Childhood

Birbalsingh’s speech also points toward a wider cultural problem: children are being shaped by social media, algorithms and online culture at a scale adults have not properly controlled.

We should be honest about this.

Many children now receive moral instruction from platforms designed to capture attention, provoke reaction, reward outrage and keep users scrolling. That is not a neutral environment. It changes language. It changes expectations. It changes how children understand identity, relationships, sex, conflict, popularity, shame, humiliation, violence and status.

The Online Safety Act 2023 reflects Parliament’s recognition that online platforms have duties in relation to illegal content and children’s exposure to harmful material. Government materials on the Act describe duties on platforms to protect child users and enforce age limits more consistently.

But legislation alone will not raise children.

Parents, schools and communities cannot simply say, “The platform should sort it.” Of course platforms should be held to account. But adults also need to know what children are watching, who they are speaking to, what messages are shaping them and whether online life is becoming a substitute parent.

Practical safeguarding questions

Does the child have unrestricted access to adult content?
Are they being drawn into misogynistic, violent, extremist or self-harm content?
Are they being groomed, pressured, bullied or humiliated online?
Are parents using phones to monitor, control or interrogate the child?
Is one parent using messages, screenshots or social media to influence the child against the other?
Is online activity affecting sleep, school, anxiety, aggression or family relationships?

The Legal Framework: Welfare, Safeguarding and Adult Responsibility

From a family law perspective, this debate must come back to welfare.

Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, when a court determines any question about a child’s upbringing, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. That principle is not sentimental. It is practical. It requires the court to look beyond adult entitlement and focus on what is best for the child.

Safeguarding guidance also places responsibility on adults and agencies. Keeping Children Safe in Education 2025 sets out the legal duties schools and colleges must follow to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 emphasises multi-agency responsibility, clarity of roles and effective support for children who need help and protection.

So when we talk about moral character, discipline, responsibility and culture, we should not treat those as abstract political ideas. They sit alongside very real legal and safeguarding duties.

The legal and safeguarding reality

Children need adults to protect them from harm.

Children need adults to promote their welfare.

Children need adults to model safe behaviour.

Children need adults to tell the truth.

Children need adults to stop making adult conflict their burden.

That applies whether the adult is a parent, teacher, social worker, Cafcass officer, solicitor, McKenzie Friend, religious leader, politician, platform owner or judge.

A Trauma-Informed Response Does Not Mean No Standards

One of the mistakes in public debate is the false choice between compassion and standards.

Some people talk about discipline as if children simply need to be controlled.

Others talk about trauma as if expectations are inherently harmful.

Both positions are too crude.

A trauma-informed approach does not mean children should have no boundaries, no consequences, no responsibility and no expectations. It means adults understand that behaviour may be communication, that fear changes the nervous system, that shame can escalate harm, and that children who have experienced instability may need calm, predictable, relationally safe structure.

In other words: trauma-informed practice should make adults better at boundaries, not afraid of them.

Children who have been harmed do not need chaos dressed up as kindness. They need safety, predictability, attunement, truth and adults who can stay regulated.

This is particularly important in domestic abuse cases.

A child who has lived with coercive control may be hypervigilant. A child who has witnessed violence may become aggressive, withdrawn, compliant or controlling. A child caught in post-separation abuse may say what they think the powerful adult wants to hear. A child who has been emotionally parentified may appear mature while carrying entirely inappropriate burdens.

The answer is not permissiveness.

The answer is safe, skilled, evidence-led adult leadership.

What This Means for Parents

Parents do not need to be perfect. No parent is.

But children do need parents who are willing to take responsibility.

That means:

Do not involve children in adult disputes.
Do not show children court documents, hostile messages or adult allegations unless there is a clear safeguarding reason and professional advice.
Do not use “the child’s wishes” as a shield for adult manipulation.
Do not undermine the other safe parent to secure loyalty.
Do not outsource parenting to devices.
Do not confuse permissiveness with love.
Do not confuse control with protection.
Do not make children responsible for your loneliness, anger or emotional regulation.

Positive parenting is not weak parenting. It involves warmth, structure, honesty, repair and consistency.

Children need to know that adults can apologise. They need to see adults resolve conflict without threats. They need to hear adults say, “That was not acceptable,” without humiliation or cruelty. They need to learn that love is not the absence of boundaries.

What This Means for Schools

Schools cannot replace families. But they are often the first place where the impact of family breakdown, domestic abuse, neglect, poor sleep, online harm and emotional insecurity becomes visible.

A school culture that values behaviour, kindness, duty, learning and personal responsibility can be protective. It can give children stability. It can give them a model of adult authority that is calm and predictable. It can create a place where children are not ruled by the loudest, most aggressive or most disruptive pupil in the room.

But schools also have to be alert to safeguarding realities.

A child who is repeatedly late, exhausted, anxious, aggressive, hungry, withdrawn, unusually compliant or suddenly refusing contact with a parent may not simply be “difficult”. There may be something happening at home. There may be coercive control. There may be neglect. There may be a parent using the child as a messenger. There may be online harm. There may be fear.

The best school cultures hold standards and curiosity together.

A safeguarding-aware school asks

What has changed?
What pattern are we seeing?
What is the child communicating through behaviour?
Are there safe adults around this child?
Is the child being placed under pressure by an adult?
What information needs to be shared, and with whom, to safeguard this child?

What This Means for Family Court Cases

For litigants in person, this discussion is not theoretical. It affects how cases should be prepared.

If you are involved in children proceedings, do not simply say:

“The other parent is damaging the child.”

That may be true. But the court needs evidence, examples, dates, patterns, impact and practical proposals.

Better questions are:

What exactly has happened?
When did it happen?
How do I know?
What was the child’s presentation before and after?
Is there a pattern?
What evidence supports it?
What order am I asking the court to make?
How does that order promote the child’s welfare?
How does it reduce conflict or safeguarding risk?

A welfare-focused case is not built on outrage. It is built on clarity.

If your concern is emotional harm, coercive control, alienating behaviour, unsafe communication, online exposure, neglect, educational instability or the child being burdened with adult issues, organise the evidence properly.

Courts are more likely to understand patterns when those patterns are set out calmly and chronologically.

Practical evidence examples

A short chronology of key incidents.
A schedule showing dates, behaviour, evidence and impact on the child.
School attendance, lateness, behaviour or wellbeing records where relevant.
Messages showing unsafe communication or adult conflict being pushed through the child.
Examples of the child being asked to choose sides.
Evidence of online harm, monitoring, pressure or inappropriate exposure.
Clear proposals for safer handovers, communication, boundaries and contact arrangements.

The Bigger Point: Children Need Adults to Be Adults

The reason Birbalsingh’s speech has resonated is because many people can feel that something has gone wrong.

Children are anxious.

Parents are overwhelmed.

Teachers are exhausted.

Family courts are overloaded.

Social media is shaping children faster than adults can respond.

Professionals are often afraid to speak plainly.

And too many children are left to navigate adult confusion without enough guidance, protection or moral structure.

We do not fix that by shouting slogans at one another.

We fix it by taking adult responsibility seriously again.

That means:

Parents setting loving, consistent boundaries.
Schools creating safe, purposeful cultures.
Courts focusing on welfare, evidence and long-term impact.
Professionals naming coercive control and emotional harm where it exists.
Adults refusing to use children as weapons in adult disputes.
Platforms being held to account for the environments they create.
Communities rebuilding expectations around duty, service, truth and care.

This is not nostalgia. It is safeguarding.

Children need freedom, but freedom without formation is abandonment.

Children need compassion, but compassion without truth is sentimentality.

Children need rights, but rights without responsible adults are not enough.

For Litigants in Person: Make the Court’s Job Easier

If you are a litigant in person dealing with child arrangements, safeguarding concerns, coercive control, alienating behaviours or post-separation abuse, the court needs help to see the pattern clearly.

Do not bury the issue in long emotional statements. Do not send pages of screenshots with no explanation. Do not assume the court will automatically understand the significance of behaviour that has taken months or years to unfold.

Your job is to make the court’s job easier.

That means presenting:

the issue;
the evidence;
the pattern;
the impact on the child;
the safeguarding risk;
the practical order sought;
why that order is in the child’s welfare interests.

The strongest family court documents are calm, specific and child-focused. They do not need to be dramatic. They need to be clear.

How JSH Law Can Help

JSH Law supports people navigating the family court, particularly where there are concerns about domestic abuse, coercive control, safeguarding, child arrangements, emotional harm, post-separation abuse, litigation abuse or overwhelming evidence.

Support can include:

organising evidence into clear schedules;
preparing chronologies;
drafting or improving witness statements;
helping prepare position statements;
reviewing Cafcass or section 7 report concerns;
preparing for hearings;
identifying safeguarding patterns and welfare impact;
helping litigants in person present their case clearly and calmly.

The aim is simple: to help you present the reality of what is happening in a way the court can understand and act on.

Book a consultation Contact JSH Law

Conclusion

Katharine Birbalsingh’s speech will divide opinion. Strong speeches usually do.

But the underlying question should not be dismissed:

What kind of adults are we forming?

For those of us concerned with family justice, safeguarding and children’s welfare, that question is urgent.

Children need adults who are compassionate enough to protect them and courageous enough to guide them.

They need adults who can tell the truth without cruelty.

They need adults who understand that boundaries are not the enemy of love.

They need adults who stop turning adult conflict into childhood trauma.

They need homes, schools, courts and communities that take welfare seriously in practice, not just in language.

If we fail at that, then yes, we are looking at something much deeper than an education debate.

We are looking at a failure of adult responsibility.

Sources and further reading

Stacey Dooley’s Fallen Women: The Domestic Abuse Deaths We Still Do Not Investigate Properly

June 24, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster/by jessica susan hill

When a woman dies after falling from height, the system must not rush to close the door on difficult questions. Stacey Dooley’s new BBC documentary, Fallen Women, will examine British women whose deaths occurred in deeply troubling circumstances, including cases where families believe domestic abuse, coercive control or violent relationship histories may not have been properly understood. These are not easy conversations. But they are necessary ones — because domestic abuse does not always leave visible injuries, and the final incident is not always the whole story.

JSH Law | Domestic Abuse, Safeguarding & Family Court Commentary

Stacey Dooley’s Fallen Women: Domestic Abuse, Coercive Control and the Deaths We Still Do Not Investigate Properly

When a woman dies after falling from height, the question should not be closed down too quickly. Where domestic abuse, coercive control, violence, threats or fear may form part of the background, the system must be prepared to look at the whole pattern — not just the final moment.

The BBC has announced a new Stacey Dooley documentary, Fallen Women, for BBC Three and BBC iPlayer. The film will examine British women who died after falls from height and ask whether patterns of domestic abuse may have been overlooked in some of these deaths.

BBC Factual has announced three new documentaries fronted by journalist and broadcaster Stacey Dooley: Death in the Barracks, Fallen Women and Down the K-Hole.

For those working in domestic abuse, safeguarding, family justice and violence against women and girls, Fallen Women is likely to be particularly significant.

According to the BBC announcement, the documentary begins with the story of Bianca Thomas, a young mother from Birmingham whose death after falling from an 11th-floor balcony was ruled accidental. Stacey meets Bianca’s family and friends, who remain unhappy with the verdict and still have questions about the circumstances of her death.

The film then examines wider cases involving women whose deaths occurred in ambiguous circumstances, often following allegations or histories of coercive and violent relationships. It also considers the growing campaign for “Bee’s Law”, which would encourage such scenes to be treated more consistently as potential crime scenes.

Important legal note: This article does not make any finding or allegation about the circumstances of any individual death. That is a matter for proper investigation, evidence, inquest processes and, where applicable, criminal proceedings. The issue addressed here is broader: how systems respond when women die in ambiguous circumstances against a background where domestic abuse or coercive control may be relevant.

Why this documentary matters

Domestic abuse is still too often misunderstood.

Many people still imagine domestic abuse as a single violent incident. A punch. A broken bone. A visible injury. A police call-out. A dramatic event that can be neatly documented and easily understood.

But domestic abuse rarely operates so neatly.

It can be physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, financial, digital and coercive. It can be hidden in ordinary-looking relationships. It can be minimised by professionals. It can be denied by perpetrators. It can be normalised by families. It can be missed by systems that look only for visible injury.

Coercive control is particularly dangerous because it is cumulative. It is not simply “a bad relationship”. It is a pattern of domination, intimidation, isolation and control. It is designed to make the victim feel trapped, dependent, frightened or powerless.

That is why a death following a fall from height cannot always be understood by looking only at the fall itself. The surrounding circumstances matter. The relationship history matters. Previous disclosures matter. Threats matter. Police logs matter. Messages matter. Medical records matter. Witness accounts matter. Children’s experiences matter. The victim’s own words matter.

The final incident is not always the whole story. In domestic abuse cases, the pattern is often the evidence.

What Fallen Women appears to be asking

From the BBC announcement, Fallen Women appears to raise several difficult but necessary questions:

Are deaths from height always investigated with sufficient professional curiosity?
Are police and other agencies alert to domestic abuse, coercive control and violent relationship histories?
Are scenes preserved properly where the circumstances are ambiguous?
Are bereaved families listened to when they raise concerns?
Are assumptions being made too early about accident or suicide?
Is enough attention given to patterns of abuse before death?
Do we need better consistency, data collection and national guidance?

These are not comfortable questions. But they are essential.

When a woman dies in sudden, unexplained or ambiguous circumstances, the investigation must be capable of looking beyond the immediate scene. It must examine whether the death sits within a wider pattern of abuse, fear, coercion, violence, stalking or control.

Deaths from height and the importance of context

A fall from height may be accidental. It may be self-inflicted. It may be caused by another person. It may occur in circumstances that are extremely difficult to reconstruct.

That is precisely why the early investigation matters so much.

Evidence can disappear quickly. A room can be cleaned. A phone can be removed. Messages can be deleted. CCTV can be overwritten. Witnesses can leave. A balcony, window, stairwell or rooftop can be disturbed. Digital evidence can be lost. Early assumptions can shape everything that follows.

Where there is any credible indication of domestic abuse, coercive control, threats, violence, stalking, fear or previous allegations, domestic abuse should not be treated as a side issue. It should be a central line of enquiry.

This is the safeguarding point: treating a scene as potentially significant does not presume guilt. It preserves evidence. It protects the integrity of the investigation. It gives the family a better chance of answers. It gives the deceased woman the seriousness she deserves.

The legal definition of domestic abuse is wider than many people realise

In England and Wales, domestic abuse is now defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Act recognises that abusive behaviour can include:

physical or sexual abuse;
violent or threatening behaviour;
controlling or coercive behaviour;
economic abuse; and
psychological, emotional or other abuse.

This matters because it moves the conversation beyond the outdated idea that domestic abuse only “counts” if there has been physical violence.

It also matters because coercive control is not always obvious to outsiders. It may look like constant criticism, isolation, monitoring, financial dependency, threats, humiliation, sexual pressure, control over movement, control over technology, control over contact with friends and family, or repeated behaviour designed to make the victim feel there is no safe way out.

The Home Office statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour makes clear that this offence is not about a single incident. It concerns an intentional pattern of behaviour over time, used by one person to exert power, control or coercion over another.

What coercive control can look like before a crisis

One of the most dangerous misunderstandings about coercive control is the idea that it should be easy to see.

Often, it is not.

Isolation

The victim may become cut off from friends, family, work, community, support services or anyone who might challenge the abuser’s control.

Monitoring

The perpetrator may monitor phones, messages, location, social media, bank accounts, movements, clothing, conversations or friendships.

Threats

Threats may involve violence, suicide, children, immigration status, finances, housing, reputation, pets, court proceedings or public humiliation.

Humiliation

The victim may be degraded, mocked, blamed, gaslit, criticised, accused of being unstable, or made to feel worthless and dependent.

Financial control

Money may be restricted, monitored or withheld. The victim may be prevented from working, forced into debt or made financially dependent.

Post-separation abuse

The abuse may continue after separation through litigation, child arrangements, harassment, stalking, financial pressure or repeated breaches of boundaries.

None of these behaviours should be dismissed as “relationship conflict” without careful analysis. In domestic abuse cases, context is everything.

The problem with looking at incidents in isolation

Systems often fail victims because they separate events into disconnected fragments.

A frightened phone call becomes “just an argument”.

A previous assault becomes “historic”.

A threat becomes “hearsay”.

Monitoring becomes “concern”.

Financial control becomes “money stress”.

A victim’s distress becomes “instability”.

A perpetrator’s calm presentation becomes “credibility”.

That is how patterns are missed.

Domestic abuse does not always announce itself in one perfect piece of evidence. It is often found in the accumulation: the chronology, the messages, the disclosures, the witnesses, the medical notes, the police logs, the behaviour before and after separation, and the victim’s own words.

The better question is not “Where is the single incident?”

The better question is:

What pattern is emerging?
Who had power?
Who was afraid?
Who was isolated?
Who was being monitored?
Who was being threatened?
What changed in the victim’s behaviour before death?
What evidence exists across agencies, devices and witnesses?

Why “Bee’s Law” is being discussed

The BBC announcement refers to the growing campaign for “Bee’s Law”, which would encourage scenes involving women who fall from height to be treated more consistently as potential crime scenes.

The principle behind that campaign is straightforward: where a woman has died after falling from height, particularly where there are allegations or histories of domestic abuse, coercive control or violence, the investigation should not begin from a place of premature closure.

It should begin with evidence preservation.

That means securing the scene, preserving digital evidence, checking previous police reports, speaking to relevant witnesses, considering domestic abuse history, reviewing medical and safeguarding records where appropriate, and avoiding assumptions that cannot yet be safely made.

This is not about presuming that every death is a homicide. It is about ensuring that possible evidence is not lost before investigators have properly understood the context.

Families should not have to become investigators

One of the most painful themes in cases involving unexplained or contested deaths is the burden placed on families.

Bereaved families may find themselves trying to obtain records, challenge assumptions, identify witnesses, preserve messages, instruct lawyers, raise funds, deal with coronial processes, speak to the media, push for reviews and force agencies to look again.

That is an extraordinary burden to place on people who are grieving.

Where domestic abuse may be relevant, families should be listened to carefully. They may know about previous incidents, fears, disclosures, threats or controlling behaviour that agencies have not joined together. They may hold vital context. They may be able to identify patterns that are not obvious from the final incident alone.

That does not mean families can determine the outcome. It means their concerns should be taken seriously and tested properly through evidence.

Why this matters in the family court too

Although Fallen Women concerns deaths and investigation, the same pattern problem appears constantly in family court proceedings.

Survivors are often expected to prove coercive control in a system that still sometimes looks for visible injury, recent police action or criminal convictions. That approach is unsafe.

Many victims do not have convictions to point to. Some never reported. Some reported and were not believed. Some were too frightened to continue. Some were financially trapped. Some were threatened with losing the children. Some were told nobody would believe them. Some were still trying to make sense of what had happened to them.

In children proceedings, financial remedy proceedings, non-molestation order applications and occupation order applications, coercive control may appear through:

post-separation abuse;
litigation abuse;
repeated applications designed to exhaust the other party;
withholding money, documents, passports or belongings;
using child arrangements as a mechanism of control;
monitoring calls or handovers;
intimidating behaviour at court or during communication;
controlling narratives given to professionals;
using children as messengers or emotional weapons;
minimising abuse as “conflict” or “communication difficulties”.

The family court must be willing to look at patterns. It must not reduce coercive control to isolated incidents stripped of context.

The danger of calling everything “conflict”

One of the most damaging habits in domestic abuse cases is the use of neutral language to describe unequal power.

Not every case is “high conflict”.

Sometimes one person is afraid and the other person is controlling.

Sometimes one person is trying to create safety and the other person is trying to maintain dominance.

Sometimes one person is trying to set boundaries and the other person is punishing them for it.

Calling everything “conflict” can erase coercive control. It can make the victim appear equally responsible for the abuse they are trying to escape. It can also lead professionals to prioritise contact, compromise or communication over safety.

When coercive control is mislabelled as conflict, safeguarding is already being diluted.

What professionals should be asking

Whether the context is police investigation, coronial process, safeguarding, family court or legal support, professionals need to ask better questions.

Was there a known or alleged history of domestic abuse?
This includes physical abuse, coercive control, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, economic abuse, stalking, harassment, intimidation and threats.
Was the victim afraid?
Fear is not always expressed formally. It may appear in messages, disclosures to friends, changed behaviour, withdrawal, anxiety or attempts to appease the perpetrator.
Was there isolation?
Isolation from family, friends, work, professionals or support services is a major red flag in coercive control cases.
Was there monitoring or surveillance?
This may include phone monitoring, location tracking, spyware, checking messages, controlling social media or requiring constant updates.
Were there threats linked to children, money, immigration, housing or reputation?
Coercive control often operates through threats that may not look like direct physical violence.
What evidence exists across agencies?
Police, GPs, hospitals, schools, social services, employers, domestic abuse services and family members may each hold part of the picture.
What changed before the crisis?
Escalation, separation, pregnancy, new relationships, court proceedings, financial disputes and loss of control can all be relevant risk points.

What needs to change

If Fallen Women succeeds in bringing these issues to a wider audience, the conversation must not stop at awareness. Awareness matters, but awareness without structural change is not enough.

We need practical reform.

At a minimum, we need:

clearer national guidance for deaths from height where domestic abuse may be relevant;
consistent treatment of ambiguous scenes as potential crime scenes until properly assessed;
proper digital evidence preservation from the outset;
domestic abuse and coercive control training for police, coroners, prosecutors and family justice professionals;
better data collection on women who die after falls from height;
proper recording of domestic abuse history across agencies;
meaningful family engagement where relatives raise concerns;
stronger links between domestic abuse services and investigators;
family court training on coercive control, post-separation abuse and litigation abuse;
a shift away from minimising abuse as “relationship conflict”.

None of this undermines due process. It strengthens it.

Proper investigation protects everyone. It protects families from unanswered questions. It protects suspects from unsafe speculation. It protects the integrity of criminal proceedings. It protects the public from systemic failure. Most importantly, it protects the dignity of women whose deaths deserve to be understood properly.

For survivors reading this

If you are reading this and recognising your own relationship, please take that seriously.

You do not need to wait until there is physical violence before seeking support. You do not need to have a criminal conviction before your fear matters. You do not need to justify why something feels wrong. You do not need to minimise behaviour because nobody else has seen the worst of it.

Coercive control often makes victims doubt themselves. That is part of how it works.

If you are in immediate danger in the UK, call 999. If it is not safe to speak, you may be able to use the Silent Solution by calling 999 and pressing 55 when prompted.

You can contact the National Domestic Abuse Helpline, run by Refuge, on 0808 2000 247. It is free, confidential and available 24 hours a day.

How JSH Law can help in family court cases involving domestic abuse

JSH Law supports litigants in person with family court paperwork, evidence organisation and hearing preparation where domestic abuse, coercive control, safeguarding concerns or post-separation abuse are relevant.

In these cases, the quality of the evidence preparation matters. The court needs to understand the pattern, not simply a list of isolated events.

Helpful documents may include:

a clear safeguarding chronology;
a focused witness statement;
a Scott Schedule or allegations schedule where appropriate;
a pattern-based coercive control summary;
a child impact summary;
a position statement for hearings;
organised exhibits and message evidence;
preparation for fact-finding hearings;
preparation for non-molestation order or occupation order applications;
questions for Cafcass, experts or witnesses where permitted.

Domestic abuse evidence must be presented clearly, calmly and safely. It should not be a data dump. It should help the court see the pattern, understand the risk and make child-focused, safeguarding-led decisions.

Final thought

Fallen Women is likely to be difficult viewing. But difficult viewing is sometimes necessary.

Women’s deaths should not be reduced to assumptions. Families should not have to fight for basic investigative curiosity. Domestic abuse should not be missed because there was no obvious injury. Coercive control should not be ignored because it is harder to evidence than physical violence.

When women fall, the system must look up.

It must look at the relationship. It must look at the history. It must look at fear. It must look at control. It must look at the evidence before it disappears.

And where domestic abuse may be part of the story, it must not look away.

Need help preparing family court evidence involving domestic abuse or coercive control?

JSH Law helps litigants in person prepare clear, focused and safeguarding-led family court documents, including witness statements, chronologies, position statements, non-molestation order paperwork, child arrangements evidence and hearing preparation.

Book a consultation or request document support through JSH Law.

Sources and further reading

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are involved in court proceedings or at immediate risk, seek urgent legal or safeguarding advice.

“`

CPS Tells Prosecutors to Expose Patterns of Past Misconduct in Rape Trials

June 24, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster/by jessica susan hill

For too long, victims of rape and sexual violence have described feeling as though they are the ones on trial. The CPS’s updated RASSO guidance is an important step towards a more suspect-focused approach, encouraging prosecutors to consider whether relevant patterns of past misconduct should be placed before juries.

Rape, Sexual Offences and Suspect-Focused Prosecution

CPS Tells Prosecutors to Expose Patterns of Past Misconduct in Rape Trials

The Crown Prosecution Service has updated its RASSO guidance, urging prosecutors to make greater use of suspects’ past patterns of behaviour in rape trials where legally admissible. This matters because rape trials too often focus on dissecting the victim’s credibility, rather than examining the suspect’s conduct, context and pattern of behaviour.

Updated: June 2026
Focus: CPS RASSO guidance, bad character evidence, rape misconceptions, suspect-focused investigation, domestic abuse, sexual violence, family law and safeguarding.

The Crown Prosecution Service has announced updated guidance encouraging prosecutors to make greater use of a suspect’s past patterns of behaviour in rape trials.

This may include previous allegations, inappropriate conduct, relevant offences, acquittals, non-conviction material and other behaviour which may help demonstrate a pattern, provided the court decides that the evidence is admissible.

This is important.

For too long, many victims of rape and serious sexual offences have felt that they are the ones on trial. Their clothing, messages, behaviour, trauma responses, memory, delay in reporting, previous relationships, mental health and credibility have been picked apart, while the suspect’s conduct is sometimes examined too narrowly.

The CPS update is designed to shift the focus back where it belongs: onto the suspect’s actions, behaviour, pattern and alleged offending.

This is not about convicting people because of rumour, reputation or previous accusation. It is about ensuring that relevant patterns of behaviour are not ignored where the law allows a jury to hear them.

What has the CPS announced?

On 24 June 2026, the CPS announced changes to its Rape and Serious Sexual Offences prosecution guidance.

The CPS says prosecutors are being urged to consider whether juries should hear about previous incidents where a defendant was accused of similar behaviour. Examples given include following someone home, acting aggressively in relationships, committing other sexual offences, or other relevant incidents, even where those incidents did not lead to charge or conviction.

This kind of evidence is known legally as bad character evidence.

The updated guidance encourages prosecutors to consider applying to introduce this material wherever it is relevant. The court then decides whether it can be used.

Official sources:

What is bad character evidence?

In criminal proceedings, bad character evidence is evidence of misconduct or a disposition towards misconduct. In simple terms, it may include evidence about previous convictions, previous allegations, previous conduct, or other behaviour which may be relevant to an important issue in the case.

But it is not a free-for-all.

Prosecutors cannot simply tell a jury every negative thing ever said about a defendant.

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, bad character evidence must pass through one of the statutory gateways and must be admissible. The court retains an important safeguarding role.

Key legal point:

A prosecutor may apply to introduce bad character evidence. The court decides whether it is admissible. This is a legal test, not a media exercise and not an invitation to convict someone based on character alone.

In rape and serious sexual offence cases, bad character evidence may be highly important where it demonstrates a relevant pattern of behaviour, context, propensity, targeting, escalation, grooming, coercion, violence, boundary crossing, stalking, harassment or a repeated explanation used by the suspect.

Why this matters in rape trials

Rape trials are often affected by myths and misconceptions.

These may include assumptions about:

how a “real” victim should behave;
whether someone should report immediately;
whether trauma causes consistent memory;
whether a calm victim is less credible;
whether prior communication means consent;
whether a relationship history means ongoing consent;
whether physical injury must be present;
whether lack of resistance means consent;
whether delayed reporting means fabrication;
whether a victim’s mental health makes them inherently unreliable.

The CPS guidance expressly recognises that rape misconceptions and assumptions must play no part in prosecutorial decision-making. Prosecutors are encouraged to identify and tackle those misconceptions as part of case strategy.

This matters because rape cases often involve limited physical evidence. A complainant’s account is evidence. The absence of independent corroboration does not automatically make a case weak or unreliable.

Why the suspect-focused approach matters:

Instead of asking only, “Why did the victim behave that way?”, prosecutors are being pushed to ask, “What did the suspect do, what did they know, what pattern exists, and how does the wider evidence help the jury understand the allegation?”

Examples given by the CPS

The CPS gives examples where bad character evidence has previously been used in rape trials.

These include:

a statement from a suspect’s niece saying he had kissed her inappropriately, even though she had not reported it to police at the time;
a previous rape acquittal being explained to a jury in a later rape trial;
a case where a victim from an earlier rape allegation gave evidence in a later case to show similarities in the defendant’s behaviour.

These examples show why prosecutors are being encouraged to take a wider view of a suspect’s conduct.

A single allegation may appear isolated if viewed in a vacuum. But when earlier behaviour is properly investigated and legally admissible, a pattern may emerge.

Important fairness point:

Previous allegations or misconduct do not automatically prove guilt. The court must decide whether evidence can properly be admitted. The defendant remains presumed innocent unless and until guilt is proved.

Why non-conviction material can matter

One of the most important parts of the CPS update is the recognition that relevant material may exist even where there was no earlier conviction.

That matters because many sexual offences are never charged. Many are never reported. Some investigations end in no further action. Some victims withdraw support because the process is too traumatic. Some allegations are acquitted because the jury was not sure, not because the incident was proved false.

The absence of a conviction is not the same thing as proof that nothing happened.

This is difficult territory, because criminal trials must be fair to defendants. But ignoring relevant patterns simply because earlier conduct did not result in conviction can also produce injustice.

The careful middle ground:

Non-conviction material should not be treated casually, but nor should it be automatically ignored. The question is whether it is relevant, reliable enough for the purpose advanced, admissible under the statutory framework, and fair for the jury to consider.

Why this may matter in domestic abuse and relationship rape cases

The guidance is especially important where rape allegations arise in the context of domestic abuse, coercive control or an intimate relationship.

In those cases, the alleged rape may not be understood properly if the jury hears only about the incident itself.

The wider relationship context may matter.

Relevant behaviour may include:

coercive and controlling behaviour;
physical violence;
threats and intimidation;
stalking or monitoring;
economic control;
sexual pressure or boundary violations;
isolation from family or friends;
degrading language or humiliation;
threats involving children;
post-separation harassment;
a repeated pattern of denying, minimising or reframing abuse.

This is crucial because sexual violence in intimate relationships is often misunderstood.

People may assume that consent is more likely because the parties were in a relationship. That is wrong.

Consent must be freely given for each sexual act. It can be withdrawn. A relationship does not create permanent consent. Marriage does not create consent. Previous sexual history does not create consent.

JSH Law view:

Relationship context matters. A jury may need to understand whether alleged sexual offending occurred within a wider pattern of fear, control, intimidation or abuse. Without that context, the allegation may be stripped of its meaning.

The “victim on trial” problem

The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, Claire Waxman OBE, has described the longstanding problem that too much focus has been placed on dismantling a victim’s credibility rather than examining the suspect.

This is something survivors have been saying for years.

Victims often fear that if they report rape or sexual violence, they will be scrutinised more aggressively than the suspect.

They may fear questions about:

what they wore;
what they drank;
why they went there;
why they stayed;
why they messaged afterwards;
why they delayed reporting;
why they cannot remember every detail;
why they froze;
why they did not fight back;
why they previously had consensual sex with the suspect;
why they are traumatised, distressed, calm, angry, confused or inconsistent.

A suspect-focused approach does not remove the need to test evidence. Criminal trials require rigorous scrutiny. But scrutiny should not become victim-blaming by another name.

Testing evidence is necessary. Putting the victim’s character, trauma responses and life history on trial is not justice.

What about false allegation arguments?

The updated guidance also addresses defence attempts to inquire into previous sexual allegations made by victims.

This matters because victims of rape and sexual offences may be deterred from reporting if they believe every previous allegation, trauma history, counselling record or private experience will be dragged into court.

The CPS guidance makes clear that these issues must be handled carefully and only pursued where necessary as a reasonable line of inquiry.

That is important. Previous allegations should not be weaponised against victims without a proper evidential basis.

Important distinction:

A previous allegation that did not lead to conviction is not the same as a proven false allegation. The fact that a case was not charged, was discontinued, or ended in acquittal does not automatically mean the complainant lied.

The sexsomnia issue

The CPS update also includes additional guidance on the use of experts, including where the defence argues that “sexsomnia” occurred.

Sexsomnia is a claimed sleep-related condition raised in some sexual offence cases, where the defence may argue that sexual behaviour occurred while the defendant was asleep or not acting voluntarily.

The updated guidance encourages prosecutors to scrutinise such defences carefully.

That includes looking at:

whether the suspect’s account makes sense in the context of the wider evidence;
what the suspect said and did before, during and after the incident;
whether there were messages or communications suggesting awareness;
whether the defence expert has proper expertise;
whether medical records were properly considered;
whether a prosecution expert is required;
whether the defence has a proper evidential foundation.

This is part of the wider suspect-focused approach.

The issue is not merely what explanation the suspect gives. The issue is whether that explanation withstands scrutiny when tested against the evidence.

Why this matters for family law

This is CPS guidance for criminal prosecutions. It does not directly change the family court rules.

But family lawyers should still pay attention.

Family courts regularly deal with allegations of rape, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, coercive control, stalking, harassment, post-separation abuse and harmful patterns of behaviour.

The same cultural problem appears repeatedly: victims feel they are the ones on trial.

In family proceedings, this may look like:

mothers being scrutinised more than alleged perpetrators;
fear being dismissed as historical or exaggerated;
delayed disclosure being treated as suspicious;
trauma responses being misread as inconsistency;
coercive control being reduced to “poor communication”;
sexual abuse allegations being treated as strategic rather than investigated properly;
the focus shifting from alleged perpetrator behaviour to the victim’s credibility, tone, parenting or litigation conduct.

That does not mean family courts should simply accept every allegation untested. They should not.

But they should be pattern-literate.

They should understand that domestic abuse and sexual abuse are often contextual, cumulative and relational.

Family law lesson:

Whether in criminal court or family court, professionals need to understand patterns. Incidents matter, but patterns often explain risk.

Patterns matter in safeguarding

Abuse is rarely understood properly if it is broken into isolated incidents and examined without context.

A pattern may include:

repeated boundary crossing;
sexual pressure;
minimisation and denial;
control of money, movement or communication;
monitoring;
jealousy framed as care;
threats to take children;
threats of self-harm or suicide;
using court proceedings as control;
intimidation at handovers;
litigation abuse;
stalking after separation;
a repeated narrative that the victim is unstable, vindictive or lying.

When professionals do not look for patterns, victims are forced to prove the same dynamic repeatedly, one incident at a time.

That is exhausting.

It also benefits perpetrators who are skilled at presenting each incident as trivial, mutual, misunderstood or isolated.

The safeguarding point:

A court cannot assess risk properly if it refuses to see pattern. Behaviour that looks ambiguous in isolation may become clear when viewed in context.

What survivors should understand

If you are a survivor of rape, sexual assault or domestic abuse, this update may feel significant but also difficult.

It may be validating to hear prosecutors acknowledge that patterns of behaviour matter.

It may also be upsetting, because many victims know from experience that the system has not always listened properly.

A few practical points may help:

You are not responsible for proving a whole criminal case by yourself.
Delayed reporting does not mean the abuse did not happen.
Freezing, appeasing, staying in contact or returning to an abuser can be trauma responses.
A previous allegation not leading to conviction does not automatically mean it was false.
Patterns of behaviour may matter, including coercive control, threats, stalking and previous misconduct.
If there are family court proceedings, criminal justice material may also be relevant to safeguarding.
Specialist support can be important before, during and after court proceedings.

Safety note:

If you are in immediate danger, call 999. If it is not safe to speak, use the Silent Solution system by pressing 55 when prompted after calling 999 from a mobile phone.

What practitioners should take from this

For lawyers, advisers, support workers and anyone involved in cases concerning abuse, the message is clear: patterns matter.

Practitioners should think carefully about:

Whether the case is being framed too narrowly.
Whether previous incidents are being ignored.
Whether there are earlier allegations, reports, messages or witness accounts.
Whether a repeated explanation by the suspect or alleged perpetrator is itself significant.
Whether domestic abuse context is necessary to understand sexual abuse allegations.
Whether rape myths or misconceptions are affecting the analysis.
Whether the victim is being treated as the problem rather than the suspect’s conduct being properly examined.
Whether expert evidence is needed to explain trauma, sleep-related defences, digital evidence or behaviour patterns.
Whether family court allegations are being treated with sufficient safeguarding seriousness.

This is not about weakening fairness. It is about making the evidential picture more complete.

The JSH Law view

JSH Law welcomes the direction of travel in the CPS guidance.

The shift towards suspect-focused investigation and prosecution is essential if rape and serious sexual offence cases are to be handled fairly and intelligently.

Victims should not be the ones placed on trial.

Evidence still needs to be tested. Defendants remain entitled to a fair trial. Courts must carefully control what is admissible.

But fairness does not require blindness to pattern.

Where there is relevant evidence of previous misconduct, similar allegations, coercive behaviour, sexual boundary crossing, stalking, harassment, violence or repeated patterns of control, prosecutors should be alive to it.

Family courts should also take the broader lesson seriously.

Abuse is often patterned. Risk is often cumulative. Victim-blaming is often subtle. And legal systems can cause real harm when they focus endlessly on the victim’s credibility while failing to scrutinise the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour with equal seriousness.

The bottom line:

This CPS update matters because it recognises that rape and sexual abuse cases must not be stripped of context. Patterns of behaviour can be legally and evidentially important. The challenge now is ensuring that this guidance changes practice, improves trust, protects victims, and keeps the focus where it belongs: on the suspect’s actions and behaviour.

Sources and further reading

Need help organising evidence in a family court case involving abuse?

JSH Law helps litigants in person and family law clients organise documents, prepare chronologies, analyse allegations, map patterns of behaviour and turn overwhelming material into clear, structured, court-ready information.

If your family court case involves domestic abuse, sexual abuse allegations, coercive control, safeguarding concerns, police evidence, non-molestation proceedings or child arrangements, practical document and evidence support is available.

Contact JSH Law or book a consultation through the website.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. If you are in immediate danger in the UK, call 999. If you are involved in criminal proceedings, family court proceedings or a safeguarding matter, seek specialist legal advice or support wherever possible.

“`

Raneem’s Law Expanded: Why Domestic Abuse Specialists in 999 Control Rooms Matter

June 24, 2026/0 Comments/in 4. Domestic Abuse & Safeguarding Cluster/by jessica susan hill

Raneem’s Law was born from devastating failure. Raneem Oudeh and her mother, Khaola Saleem, should have been heard, understood and protected. The expansion of domestic abuse specialists into more 999 control rooms is therefore deeply significant — but it must be judged by outcomes, not announcements.

Domestic Abuse, Safeguarding and Police Response

Raneem’s Law Expanded: Domestic Abuse Specialists in 999 Control Rooms Are Being Trebled

The expansion of Raneem’s Law is an important safeguarding development. Domestic abuse specialists are being embedded in 12 more 999 control rooms across England and Wales, bringing the total to 17 forces. This is a welcome step — but the real test will be whether victims are heard, risk is recognised early, and police action changes before another family is failed.

Updated: June 2026
Focus: Raneem’s Law, domestic abuse, 999 control rooms, police safeguarding, family law, non-molestation orders, child arrangements and evidence in family court.

The Home Office has announced that domestic abuse specialists will be embedded in 12 more 999 control rooms under Phase Two of Raneem’s Law.

This means the number of police forces operating the model will rise from five to 17, with the government committed to rolling it out across every police force in England and Wales by 2029.

This is significant.

Domestic abuse cases are often won or lost, protected or missed, escalated or minimised, at the first point of contact. That first 999 call can be the moment when risk is properly identified — or the moment when danger is misunderstood as “just a domestic”.

Raneem’s Law is not just about putting specialists in control rooms. It is about changing what happens when a victim reaches out for help and the system has one chance to respond properly.

What is Raneem’s Law?

Raneem’s Law was established in memory of Raneem Oudeh and her mother, Khaola Saleem, who were murdered in 2018 after repeated contact with police, including multiple 999 calls.

Their case has become a symbol of what can happen when domestic abuse risk is not properly recognised, when repeated calls are not understood as escalation, and when victims are not protected at the point when protection is most urgently needed.

The purpose of Raneem’s Law is to place domestic abuse expertise directly inside police 999 control rooms, so that call handlers and responding officers are not left to interpret high-risk domestic abuse calls without specialist support.

The specialists are intended to help with:

real-time advice to call handlers and responding officers;
reviewing domestic abuse cases and risk assessments;
identifying high-risk cases earlier;
supporting staff training on domestic abuse;
improving victim engagement during emergency calls;
ensuring victims are referred quickly to specialist services;
spotting missed safeguarding opportunities;
strengthening the police response from the first point of contact.

Read the official announcements:

What has been announced?

The latest announcement confirms that Phase Two of Raneem’s Law will embed domestic abuse specialists in 12 additional 999 control rooms across England and Wales.

The 12 additional Phase Two forces are:

Thames Valley Police;
West Yorkshire Police;
Hampshire Constabulary;
Essex Police;
Merseyside Police;
Nottinghamshire Police;
Derbyshire Constabulary;
Cambridgeshire Constabulary;
North Wales Police;
Gloucestershire Constabulary;
Cleveland Police;
Dyfed-Powys Police.

The five forces already operating the model are:

West Midlands Police;
Northumbria Police;
Northamptonshire Police;
Bedfordshire Police;
Humberside Police.

That brings the total to 17 forces.

Why this matters:

If the first response to a domestic abuse call is better informed, the whole safeguarding chain may change: risk assessment, officer deployment, referral to specialist services, evidence gathering, bail or protective measures, and later court proceedings.

What early reports suggest

According to the Home Office announcement, early reports from police forces suggest the initiative has led to:

increased confidence among call handlers and officers;
earlier identification of high-risk domestic abuse cases;
swifter action to deploy safeguarding measures and protect victims.

Those are exactly the areas where domestic abuse response has historically failed too many victims.

Domestic abuse is not always obvious to someone who has not been trained to recognise coercive control, escalation, stalking, strangulation risk, separation risk, post-separation abuse, threats of suicide, threats to children, economic abuse or patterns of intimidation.

A single incident may be serious. But a pattern can be lethal.

That is why specialist knowledge at the point of emergency contact matters.

Domestic abuse is not just about the incident being reported that day.

The immediate call may be only one visible point in a much longer pattern of control, fear, escalation and risk. A specialist is more likely to ask what has happened before, what has changed, whether separation has increased risk, whether there are threats, whether children are present, and whether the caller is minimising danger because they are frightened.

Why 999 control rooms are so important in domestic abuse cases

A 999 control room is not just an administrative gateway. It is often the first professional decision point in a domestic abuse crisis.

The call handler may need to make rapid decisions about:

how immediate the danger is;
whether the caller can speak freely;
whether the perpetrator is present;
whether there are children in the home;
whether weapons are involved;
whether there has been strangulation or suffocation;
whether there are threats to kill;
whether the victim is trying to leave or has recently separated;
whether stalking or harassment is escalating;
whether previous incidents have been reported;
whether an urgent police response is required;
whether additional safeguarding action is needed immediately.

Those decisions can have life-changing consequences.

If the wrong questions are asked, the danger may be missed.

If the call is treated as a one-off dispute, the pattern may be missed.

If the caller is calm, articulate or minimising, the risk may be underestimated.

If the perpetrator has no obvious criminal history, control and coercion may be dismissed.

If the victim has called before, repeat contact may be wrongly framed as “relationship drama” rather than a warning sign.

The danger is minimisation.

Domestic abuse victims are often at greatest risk when systems underestimate what they are being told. A specialist in the control room cannot guarantee safety, but they can reduce the chance that key warning signs are missed at the very first point of contact.

The family law relevance

This announcement is not only relevant to criminal justice. It matters deeply in family law.

Domestic abuse allegations are central to many private children cases, non-molestation applications, occupation order applications, relocation disputes, prohibited steps applications and enforcement proceedings.

Police response can become important evidence in family court.

That may include:

999 call recordings;
CAD logs;
incident reports;
body-worn video;
DASH or other risk assessments;
arrest records;
bail conditions;
Domestic Abuse Protection Notices or Orders;
non-molestation order breach reports;
referrals to MARAC or specialist services;
evidence of repeat call-outs;
records showing escalation or patterns of coercive control.

In a family case, this material can be critical.

It may help the court understand whether the alleged abuse is isolated, minimised, denied, escalating, post-separation, child-impacting or part of a longer course of coercive and controlling behaviour.

Practical family court point:

If there has been emergency police contact, parties and advisers should think carefully about whether police disclosure is needed. A short summary from memory may not be enough. The timing, wording, response, risk assessment and subsequent action may all matter.

Why this matters for victims applying for protective orders

Victims often apply for urgent protective orders after an incident, escalation or police contact.

In family law, this may include:

non-molestation orders;
occupation orders;
prohibited steps orders;
child arrangements applications involving safeguarding concerns;
variation or suspension of contact;
specific issue applications;
applications for special measures;
requests for fact-finding hearings.

A stronger emergency response can support better evidence, better safeguarding decisions and clearer applications.

But the victim should not have to become an investigator of their own abuse.

Too often, victims are expected to gather screenshots, organise timelines, chase police records, explain coercive control, produce evidence, protect children, manage fear and navigate court procedure all at the same time.

If Raneem’s Law improves the quality of the initial police response, it may also improve the quality of the evidential record later.

Potential benefit:

Better 999 handling may mean better early documentation of risk. That can help victims, lawyers, police, support services and courts understand what actually happened — and what needs to happen next.

Why this matters for child arrangements cases

Domestic abuse is not separate from children’s welfare.

Children may be directly harmed, exposed to abuse, used as a means of control, frightened by police attendance, drawn into adult conflict, or affected by post-separation abuse long after the relationship has ended.

Family courts must take domestic abuse seriously when considering child arrangements.

A properly recorded police response can help identify:

whether children were present during an incident;
whether the perpetrator made threats involving the children;
whether handovers are unsafe;
whether contact is being used for control;
whether communication arrangements need restrictions;
whether a fact-finding hearing is required;
whether special measures are needed;
whether contact should be supervised, supported, suspended or risk-assessed;
whether safeguarding information should be shared urgently.

This is why the first response matters.

A missed emergency call can echo through a whole family court case.

A properly understood emergency call can change the way risk is framed from the beginning.

Domestic abuse is often misunderstood at the point of contact

One of the most persistent problems in domestic abuse response is that abuse is still too often treated as a series of incidents rather than a pattern of control.

Victims may not use the language professionals expect.

They may not say “coercive control”.

They may say:

“He keeps turning up.”
“He won’t leave me alone.”
“He has my phone.”
“He says he will ruin me.”
“He says I will never see the children again.”
“He is outside.”
“He is threatening to report me.”
“He has been messaging my family.”
“He controls the money.”
“He has never hit me, but I am scared.”

A non-specialist response may miss the risk.

A trained domestic abuse specialist is more likely to understand that fear, control, monitoring, threats, stalking, post-separation harassment and economic abuse can be just as serious as visible physical injury.

Important:

Many victims minimise abuse when they speak to professionals because they are frightened, ashamed, exhausted, worried about the children, financially trapped, or afraid they will not be believed. The system needs to be trained to hear what is being said — and what is being carefully left unsaid.

What Raneem’s Law may improve

If implemented properly, domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms could improve several parts of the system.

1. Earlier risk recognition

Specialists may help identify high-risk indicators earlier, especially where abuse is escalating, repeated, post-separation or linked to stalking and coercive control.

2. Better officer guidance

Officers responding on the ground may receive more informed advice about what to ask, what to record, what to preserve and what safeguarding steps may be needed.

3. Stronger referrals

Victims may be referred to specialist domestic abuse support more quickly, rather than being left to navigate support services alone after a crisis.

4. Improved evidence

Better initial handling can produce clearer records, better risk assessments and more useful material for later criminal, civil or family proceedings.

5. Better training culture

Specialists can help train control room staff, improving the wider force response rather than simply intervening in individual calls.

6. More consistent safeguarding

If rolled out properly, the model could reduce postcode differences in how domestic abuse emergency calls are understood and acted upon.

But this must not become a box-ticking exercise

This expansion is welcome, but it must be judged by outcomes, not announcements.

Domestic abuse victims have heard promises before.

The question is not whether specialists are technically present in control rooms.

The real questions are:

Are emergency calls being answered and assessed properly?
Are high-risk cases being identified earlier?
Are repeat calls being treated as escalation?
Are victims being believed and protected?
Are children’s risks being recognised?
Are officers being properly guided at the scene?
Are perpetrators being held accountable?
Are referrals to specialist services happening quickly?
Are missed opportunities being audited?
Are victims safer as a result?

JSH Law view:

Raneem’s Law must not become a policy headline that looks good on paper but fails in practice. The measure matters only if it changes decision-making, improves safety and prevents victims from being ignored when they call for help.

The link with Domestic Abuse Protection Orders

The Home Office announcement also refers to the wider rollout of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders, known as DAPOs.

DAPOs are intended to provide stronger and more flexible protection for victims, including protection for as long as needed, and may include restrictions or positive requirements for perpetrators.

This is relevant because a stronger emergency response should not exist in isolation.

A victim may need:

immediate police attendance;
risk assessment;
safe accommodation;
specialist advocacy;
criminal investigation;
bail conditions;
a Domestic Abuse Protection Notice or Order;
a non-molestation order;
an occupation order;
safe child contact arrangements;
financial protection;
ongoing support for children.

The first 999 call should be the start of a coordinated protective response, not the only moment when the victim is expected to ask for help.

What victims should know

If you are in immediate danger, call 999.

If you are frightened but unsure whether what is happening “counts” as domestic abuse, it may still be important to seek advice. Domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence.

It can include:

coercive and controlling behaviour;
threats and intimidation;
stalking and harassment;
economic abuse;
sexual abuse;
emotional abuse;
isolation from friends or family;
monitoring phones, messages or location;
threats involving children;
post-separation abuse;
using court proceedings to continue control.

If police have attended or you have called 999, keep a careful record where it is safe to do so.

Useful information may include:

the date and time of the call;
what happened before the call;
whether children were present;
whether there were threats;
whether there was physical violence, strangulation or injury;
what the police did;
any incident reference number;
any bail conditions or protective measures;
any referral to support services;
any further contact or escalation afterwards.

Safety first:

Do not keep records in a place where the perpetrator can find them. If your phone, email, cloud storage or messages are monitored, seek specialist domestic abuse support before saving or sending information.

What family lawyers and advisers should watch for

Family lawyers, McKenzie friends, support workers and advisers should be alert to the importance of emergency contact records.

In a family case involving domestic abuse, ask:

Were there 999 calls?
Were there non-emergency police reports?
Were there previous incidents before the final escalation?
Are there CAD logs or incident numbers?
Was a risk assessment completed?
Were children present or affected?
Were there threats to kill, threats of suicide, stalking or strangulation?
Were bail conditions imposed?
Was the victim referred to specialist services?
Was the response adequate, delayed or minimising?
Is police disclosure needed for the family court?
Does the material support an application for protective orders or special measures?

The family court often needs a clear chronology. Police records may help build that chronology, but they should be analysed carefully and not treated as the whole story.

A police record may show only what was reported at the time. It may not capture years of coercive control, financial abuse, sexual abuse, isolation, monitoring or threats.

Practical point:

Police records can be powerful evidence, but absence of police reports does not mean absence of abuse. Many victims never report, or only report after years of escalation.

Why this announcement matters — and why it is not enough on its own

This expansion is a meaningful step.

But no single measure will fix the domestic abuse response by itself.

Raneem’s Law must sit within a wider system that includes:

proper police training on coercive control and post-separation abuse;
consistent use and enforcement of protective orders;
safe accommodation;
specialist domestic abuse support;
better perpetrator management;
family court reform;
proper legal advice for victims;
safe child contact decision-making;
recognition of economic abuse;
understanding of stalking and escalation;
accountability when police or agencies fail.

A specialist in a 999 control room can help improve the first response. But victims also need safe follow-through.

They need the system to act after the call.

They need protective measures to be enforced.

They need family courts to understand the risk.

They need children’s safety to be taken seriously.

They need not to be retraumatised by having to prove the obvious over and over again.

The measure is welcome. The question now is whether it will produce the cultural change victims have been asking for: being believed, being protected, and being treated as people at risk — not as inconvenient callers in a “domestic dispute”.

The JSH Law view

JSH Law welcomes the expansion of Raneem’s Law.

Embedding domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms is a practical and necessary step. It recognises that domestic abuse calls require expertise from the beginning, not only after a tragedy, a serious assault or repeated escalation.

But this must be more than symbolic.

The effectiveness of Raneem’s Law should be measured by real-world outcomes:

Are victims safer?
Are high-risk cases identified earlier?
Are children better protected?
Are police records more accurate?
Are perpetrators disrupted sooner?
Are protective measures being used and enforced?
Are repeat calls treated as warning signs?
Are victims referred quickly to specialist support?
Are failures audited and learned from?

Raneem Oudeh and Khaola Saleem should have been heard, understood and protected.

Their legacy must be a system that listens the first time, acts before it is too late, and understands that domestic abuse is not a private argument. It is a safeguarding issue, a policing issue, a family justice issue and a public safety issue.

The bottom line:

Raneem’s Law is a vital development, but it will only matter if it changes practice on the ground. Domestic abuse victims do not need warm words. They need specialist understanding, swift action, proper evidence, safe referrals and protection that actually works.

Sources and further reading

Need help preparing family court documents involving domestic abuse?

JSH Law helps litigants in person and family law clients organise evidence, prepare chronologies, analyse safeguarding material, draft court documents and turn overwhelming paperwork into clear, structured, court-ready information.

If your family court case involves domestic abuse, police contact, non-molestation proceedings, child arrangements, safeguarding concerns or evidence organisation, practical support is available.

Contact JSH Law or book a consultation through the website.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. If you are in immediate danger in the UK, call 999. If you are preparing family court documents or considering an application, seek legal advice or specialist domestic abuse support wherever possible.

“`

Tag Archive for: coercive control

Posts

In summary

An important clarification

This is not simply a new criminal offence

Canada has recognised coercive control in family law since 2021

That distinction matters

Children do not need to be physically assaulted to be affected by abuse

Canada asks courts to identify the pattern

Then came Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

The new Canadian criminal offence

But there is an important caveat: it is not yet operational

Do not miss this

Canada has also connected coercive control with femicide

So how does England and Wales compare?

PD12J is stronger than many litigants realise

The family court itself can become part of the machinery of control

Re H-N: stop looking at abuse through a keyhole

This is a significant procedural development

The real comparison: Canada has made the pattern unusually explicit

What England and Wales should learn from Canada

1. Pattern analysis needs to become routine

2. Post-separation conduct matters

3. Behaviour involving children needs to be analysed in context

4. Professionals need pattern-recognition training

5. The child’s experience must not disappear behind the parental dispute

6. Absence of prosecution is not absence of abuse

For litigants in person: evidence the pattern, not just the worst day

A useful coercive-control evidence structure may identify:

Conflict and coercive control are not the same thing

The deeper significance of Ahluwalia: autonomy itself can be harmed

And this matters profoundly in family court

What I hope happens next in England and Wales

The central point

Canada is worth watching

Key legal sources and authorities

Legal information, not individual legal advice

Need help making the pattern clear to the Family Court?

Start with a 15-minute consultation

Follow JSH Law

The short answer

Safety comes before evidence

The Australian case: a recording made to protect bodily autonomy

What the Australian judgment does not mean

Three different questions: lawfulness, admissibility and weight

1. Was it lawful to make?

2. Can it be admitted?

3. What weight will it carry?

What is happening around the world?

The position in England and Wales

No automatic exclusion

Hearsay does not necessarily prevent its use

The recording may help—or seriously backfire

When a recording exposed wrongdoing

When recording harmed the recorder’s case

Domestic abuse and coercive control often happen where nobody else can see

The court should examine power and purpose

Secretly recording a child is fundamentally different

Recording Cafcass, social workers, experts and meetings

Never secretly record a court hearing

I already have a recording—what should I do?

A useful witness-statement format

Possible directions to request

AI has made authenticity a much bigger issue

Do not “improve” the original

What England and Wales should learn

1. Purpose and power matter

2. Children must not become surveillance devices

3. Professionals should facilitate overt recording

4. Authenticity must be addressed early

5. Litigants in person need usable directions

Frequently asked questions

Can a secret recording be used in the Family Court?

Is it illegal to record my ex-partner without telling them?

Can I record an abusive threat or admission?

Can I hide a recorder in my child’s clothing or bag?

Can I record Cafcass or a social worker?

Can I secretly record a remote hearing?

Can I post the recording online after filing it in court?

Can I rely on a short clip?