coercive control literature review final report

Coercive Control Literature Review: Final Report

This report presents a literature review on coercive control in the context of domestic and family violence, with a particular focus on the understanding of, and responses to coercive control in the Australian context. Commissioned by the Australian Attorney-General’s Department, this review focuses on identifying, summarising, analysing and synthesising the existing Australian academic research and evaluations on coercive control. The review highlights the complexities of defining, recognising, and responding to coercive control and identifies relevant gaps in the evidence base.

Drawing from a range of quantitative and qualitative studies across scholarly and grey literature, including non‑government reports, government and parliamentary reports, peak body reports, and position papers, this review captures the growing recognition of coercively controlling behaviour in the context of family and domestic violence.

Publication Date

Commissioning body, type of report.

• Public sector research report

Place of publication

Rights statement, usage metrics.

• Browse this collection
• Acknowledgements
• Toggle view

Coercive control literature review : final report

Related Documentation

http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-3220000428

Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2023). Coercive control literature review : final report Retrieved May 15, 2024, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-3220000428

Australian Institute of Family Studies. Coercive control literature review : final report Southbank, Victoria: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2023. Web. 15 May 2024 < http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-3220000428 >

Australian Institute of Family Studies. 2023, Coercive control literature review : final report Australian Institute of Family Studies, Southbank, Victoria viewed 15 May 2024 http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-3220000428

{{Citation   | author1=Australian Institute of Family Studies.   | title= Coercive control literature review : final report   | year=2023   | section=1 online resource.   | edition=Corrected version.   | location=Southbank, Victoria   | publisher=Australian Institute of Family Studies   | url= http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-3220000428   | id= nla.obj-3220000428   | access-date=15 May 2024   | via=Trove }}

Citations are automatically generated and may require some modification to conform to exact standards.

Download the whole document and cover image as a ZIP file.

You can order a copy of this work from Copies Direct.

Copies Direct supplies reproductions of collection material for a fee. This service is offered by the National Library of Australia

Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook

What can I do with this?

In Copyright

You may order a copy or use the online copy for research or study; for other uses Contact us .

Copyright status was determined using the following information:

Copyright status may not be correct if data in the record is incomplete or inaccurate. Other access conditions may also apply.

For more information please see: Copyright in library collections .

Coercive control literature review

This report presents a literature review on coercive control in the context of domestic and family violence, with a particular focus on the understanding of, and responses to coercive control in the Australian context. Commissioned by the Australian Attorney-General’s Department, this review focuses on identifying, summarising, analysing and synthesising the existing Australian academic research and evaluations on coercive control. The review highlights the complexities of defining, recognising, and responding to coercive control and identifies relevant gaps in the evidence base.

Drawing from a range of quantitative and qualitative studies across scholarly and grey literature, including non-government reports, government and parliamentary reports, peak body reports, and position papers, this review captures the growing recognition of coercively controlling behaviour in the context of family and domestic violence.

Beckwith, S., Lowe, L. Wall, L., Stevens, E., Carson, R., Kaspiew, R., MacDonald, J. B. , McEwan, J. & Willoughby, M. (2023). C oercive control literature review . Retrieved from Australian Institute of Family Studies: https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-reports/coercive-control-literature-review

• Published: Jun, 2023
• Type: Evidence synthesis
• Read in full

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Development and Validation of a Coercive Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence: Final Technical Report

Additional details, related datasets.

• http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04570

Related Topics

Similar publications.

• Forensics: Evidence Examination via Raman Spectroscopy
• Emotion Dysregulation and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: a Test of the Incremental Role of Difficulties Regulating Positive Emotions
• Experiences of Immigrant Women Who Self-Petition Under the Violence Against Women Act

Lauren Lowe

Coercive control literature review: final report

Language selection

• Français

Notice to readers:

There have been recent reports of fraudulent phone calls that appear to be from the Department of Justice. Learn more .

Brief overview of coercive control and the criminal law

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents

The Government of Canada is committed to ending the epidemic of gender-based violence in all its forms. In the fall of 2023, the Minister of Justice expressed an openness to criminalize coercive control in a letter to Ontario’s chief coroner (in response to the coroner’s inquest into the 2015 femicides in Wilno, Ontario). Footnote 48 In November 2023, the government had expressed support for an NDP private member’s Bill C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct ), which is currently at second reading in the House of Commons.

Introduction

This article provides a summary of the literature on criminal law approaches to coercive control. While there is no one accepted definition of coercive control, the term “coercive control” or “coercive and controlling behaviour” is generally used to describe a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate partner relationships, as well as familial relationships, and serves to “entrap” victims, eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship (Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights 2021). The article focuses on the most significant and recent literature evaluating or considering the advantages and disadvantages of legislation that addresses coercive and controlling behavior (CCB) in intimate relationships. The literature on criminalizing CCB primarily originates from countries in Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, because they have the most experience in considering and implementing such legislation. There is also a body of literature from Australia.

The literature review was conducted using online databases, including Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and EBSCO. Government reports and evaluations were located using Google searches. The search included only English-language documents. Variations of the term “coercive control” were used to search for articles, as were the bibliographies of relevant articles and government reports.

The literature has differing views on whether or not criminalizing coercive control will have a positive impact on the epidemic of gender-based violence; however, one recurring theme among most scholars is that criminal law reform on its own will not be effective. Evan Stark, who coined the term “coercive control,” argues that “more law” (though not necessarily a bespoke offence) is needed, but he cautions that even the best-designed laws require commitments of resources, coordinated assistance, and political will “to pursue the [women’s] equality agenda” (Stark 2020). Most scholars agree that any criminal law approach must be multi-faceted (including recognizing the effects of immigration, family law, and child protection) to be successful.

Tolmie (2017, 63) writes that, while criminalizing coercive control may be part of the solution, on its own it is not a “complete solution to the problem of fragmentation in the criminal justice response to intimate partner violence.” Similarly, Burman and Brooks-Hay (2018, 11) caution that legislative change is “only as effective as those who enforce, prosecute, and apply [the laws]. Improving these practices – through education, training and embedding best practice and domestic abuse expertise – is likely to be more effective than the creation of new offences alone.”

In Canada, while some academics (e.g., Gill and Aspinall 2020; Chambers 2021; Lee et al. 2020) have advocated for criminalization, Footnote 49 Footnote 50 others have been more cautious. In a 2022 Globe and Mail article, several Canadian social science and legal academics expressed reservations about criminalizing CCB . They argued that it would exacerbate harms (particularly among Indigenous and racialized people, already overrepresented in the criminal justice system); would not work as a deterrent; would not facilitate successful rehabilitation of offenders; or improve safety and justice for victims.

In the Globe article, Professors Myrna Dawson and Janet Mosher advocate putting resources towards the things that we know help victims, such as adequate social assistance and supports, and other substantive, structural changes that can save women at risk (e.g., more coordinated legal system approach, better risk assessment, more education and awareness among the public and the legal system about abuse, etc.). Feminist lawyer Pamela Cross (Cross 2021; 2022) has a similar view, arguing that the criminal law is not the best avenue for keeping women safe, because it may have unintended outcomes on the people it is designed to protect.

On the other side of the debate, in a 2023 position paper, Quebec front-line service organization Regroupement argues for criminalization. The group suggests that the potential unintended outcomes that have been identified (e.g., victim harm, disproportionate harm on already overrepresented groups) can be mitigated and addressed upstream to ensure that the law meets its intended objectives (Regroupement 2023). While Haist (2021) is cautious about a criminal law approach to CCB , she argues that if criminal law reform is pursued it should include a clear definition of CCB within the legislation (clear but broad, similar to the Scottish approach). Haist also argues that a Canadian approach should not have a requirement for victims to prove subjective fear, Footnote 51 and there should be adequate testimonial aids/support for victim testimony.

The remainder of this article provides a high-level summary of some of the most prominent themes in the literature about the pros and cons of criminalizing coercive control.

What are the main arguments in favour of criminalizing coercive control?

A ccb offence will improve the criminal justice system’s approach to intimate partner violence.

Some scholars argue that criminalizing CCB is needed to fill a gap in the criminal law (e.g., Stark 2020; Gill and Aspinall 2020). The incident-based approach to intimate partner violence is viewed as inadequate because it does not fully recognize the dynamics and patterns of coercive control in relationships, and CCB can only be recognized when viewed as a pattern over time (Lee at al. 2020; Haist 2021). As Weiner (2022, 4) notes,

“[criminalisation] has the potential to remove the illusion, so often present in policing models with an incident-specific focus, that victims of control exercise autonomy “between” episodes by “choosing” to stay, and instead could allow for a risk assessment with a more appropriate orientation to the on-going entrapment experienced by victims of coercive control.”

Criminalizing non-physical violence sends a message that this type of abuse is serious

Some authors suggest that including non-physical types of abuse in the criminal law would better reflect the lived experiences of victim-survivors, send a message that this type of abuse is serious, have a symbolic effect that can influence community attitudes, and act as a deterrent to perpetrators (Bettinson and Bishop 2018; Brennan and Myhill 2021; Douglas 2018; Weiner 2022; Lee et al. 2020).

Similarly, the legal clarity that a CCB offence offers could aid victims by strengthening their confidence to seek support (Bettinson and Bishop 2018). As one domestic violence worker described, “For [the domestic violence support sector], [criminalisation is] absolutely a gift because we are now able to turn around to our survivors and say, “This is a criminal offence.” So it values and puts an evidence-base underneath what they are experiencing. ‘It is a criminal offence that he was behaving like that.’ It is just so valuable to us” (Weiner 2022).

Early intervention may help prevent abuse from escalating

Some authors argue that criminalizing non-physical abusive behaviours that are currently outside the scope of criminal law may allow for early intervention in cases of abuse. This could prevent the abuse, including intimate partner homicides, from escalating (McMahon and McGorrery 2020). As described in Weiner (2022), criminalizing CCB offers valuable tools to police “at a specific point in time when the ability to remove a dangerous perpetrator from a volatile situation can be a life-saving device.” Further, senior officers interviewed by Weiner (2022) noted that domestic homicide cases are often incorrectly assessed as low risk when a coercive control lens is not used.

What are some of the cautions or potential unintended consequences of criminalizing coercive control?

Perpetrators could use a ccb offence against their victims.

Many authors caution that more criminalization will create avenues for abusers to find ways to use the laws against victims, as abusers are very adept at manipulation and deflecting blame. In the scenario of a CCB offence, which does not involve physical forms of violence, an abuser could easily claim that the victim is the one perpetrating the abuse (Haist 2021; Cross 2022; Tolmie 2017; Walklate et al. 2018; Burman and Brooks-Hay 2018). Criminalization can also exacerbate harm by taking control away from victims (e.g., some victims do not wish to see their partner criminalized) and is viewed by many as ineffective at ensuring victim safety or holding perpetrators accountable (Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights 2021; Cross 2022; Hocking 2022).

Wangmann (2021) points to other potential unintended consequences of an offence. For example, if the system is not fully capable of transitioning away from an incident-based approach, there is a risk that multiple incidents would be considered as “adding up” to coercive control, rather than being considered as the cumulative, interrelated way in which acts and behaviours give meaning to each other to create the context of control over time. If the offence is interpreted in this way, there is a risk of women being identified as perpetrators of coercive control, because dual charging is already a significant issue under existing mandatory charging policies (Cross 2017), particularly if the gendered nature of CCB is not recognized.

Some approaches to CCB criminalization have a high evidentiary burden, which may result in low prosecution rates and revictimization

Several papers have identified evidentiary challenges as a concern, particularly under the UK’s Serious Crime Act 2015 approach, where there are difficulties meeting evidential thresholds in proving non-physical types of abuse, and in demonstrating the harm to the victim (Cairns 2020; Bettinson and Bishop 2018; Burman and Brooks-Hay 2018). The literature review in the evaluation of the Serious Crime Act 2015 identified challenges in gathering evidence/proving and prosecuting CCB because physical evidence is more limited, and victims may be less likely to support prosecution because they are being subjected to CCB . As the low rate of conviction in England and Wales shows, even where CCB has been recognized and recorded, investigating the offence may not be prioritized due to the difficulty in collecting evidence (Home Office 2021).

Wangmann (2022) and Weiner (2022) both point to the victimization that can happen when a victim of CCB is required to prove the impact of the abuse. In her critique of England and Wales’s Serious Crime Act 2015 , Weiner (2022) argues that the requirement for the victim to prove harm – and the inadequate/inappropriate articulation of what constitutes that harm – creates a more traumatic courtroom experience for survivors. “Making the harm she suffers a constituent part of the offence makes a conviction heavily dependent on her account (under cross-examination) of the most intimate details of her emotional state. If she cannot perform, the prosecution falls at the first hurdle. But if she performs too well, juries mistrust her” (Weiner 2022). Similarly, Wangmann (2021) comments on the requirement of “serious effect,” cautioning that judicial officers may draw on stereotypical notions about how a victim should react and behave.

The criminal justice system is not equipped to effectively manage this type of offence

Many authors are skeptical of the criminal justice system’s capacity to handle the more nuanced dynamics of coercive control when the system is not effectively managing even the most serious cases of abuse under the incident-based approach (Brennan and Myhill 2021; Walklate and Fitz-Gibbon 2018). The Serious Crime Act 2015 evaluation literature review found challenges for the police in recognizing and recording CCB due to its nature as a course of conduct offence rather than an incident . This is consistent with the literature, which suggests that police require a significant change of mindset to fully embrace the use of the coercive control offence (Home Office 2021). In their study looking at the Serious Crime Act 2015 , Barlow and Johnson (2019) found that calls to police for coercive control were given a lower priority than other domestic abuse-related crimes. Further, Brennan et al. 2019 consistently found in interviews with police officers in different areas that they were unprepared to conceptualize domestic abuse as a pattern of behaviour rather than specific episodes.

Some Australian states initially rejected the creation of a coercive and controlling offence. Both the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland (2015) and the Victoria Royal Commission into Family Violence (2016) noted in their final reports that difficulties in prosecuting cases under existing laws suggest that improving the enforcement, prosecution, and application of the existing laws would be more effective than creating new offences.

Increased criminalization may have disproportionate impacts on those who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system

Many authors have cautioned about the potential impacts of increased criminalization on groups that are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Racialized groups do not trust or have confidence in the police, which can lead racialized women to avoid seeking help. For some women, their race or cultural background, sexuality, or economic status may affect their ability to communicate their experiences of CCB in a way that the criminal justice system recognizes. Also, some women end up targeted by the offence, particularly those who fight back verbally and physically. For offenders, some authors argue that the prison system does not rehabilitate or deter, which can negatively affect the safety of victims. These issues are even more pronounced for Indigenous and racialized groups (Wangmann 2022; Hampton 2008; Cross 2022; Walklate et al 2018; Hocking 2022; Stark 2020; Sisters Inside 2021; Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights 2021).

What do we know about approaches to CCB criminalization in other countries?

The UK and Ireland have passed legislation in the past decade on non-physical forms of abuse that occur in intimate relationships. England and Wales Footnote 52 and Ireland Footnote 53 have enacted specific coercive control offences to cover the “gaps” in the existing criminal law, while Scotland Footnote 54 and Northern Ireland Footnote 55 have enacted a more holistic domestic violence offence, which covers physical and sexual violence as well as psychological control within the same offence. Australia has been considering a national approach to coercive control while several states have implemented or are in the process of implementing legislation. Tasmania Footnote 56 enacted offences for economic and emotional abuse in 2004, and in New South Wales, Footnote 57 a coercive control bill was passed in late 2022 and will come into force in 2024. In 2022, Queensland Footnote 58 took its first steps towards criminalizing coercive control by passing a suite of reforms to combat domestic violence (e.g., expanding the definition to include a “pattern of behaviour”, and strengthening the offence of stalking), as well as police training initiatives.

Several other European countries have introduced offences targeted at non-physical forms of abuse in intimate relationships, including France, Denmark, Hungary, and Spain. Many states in the US are also considering legislation aimed at this type of abuse; most recently, in 2021, Hawaii passed legislation making coercive control a petty misdemeanor offence as part of a five-year program to strengthen state and county responses to domestic violence and increase offender accountability.

In recent years, many jurisdictions have grappled with the increasing prevalence of intimate partner violence and the question of how to address coercive and controlling abuse. Legislation introduced to combat these issues has generally taken either a “filling the gap” approach, such as that taken in the Serious Crime Act 2015 , or the more holistic approach of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 . Early evidence on existing legislation is mixed; however, the approach adopted in Scotland is generally viewed more favourably in the literature. Arguments vary on whether a criminal law approach will have a meaningful impact on protecting victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control, and not have unintended impacts on some groups. Overall, the consensus is that, to be successful, any criminal law approach must have multi-sectoral involvement and support, as well as sufficient resources for training and implementation.

Barlow, Charlotte, Kelly Johnson, Sandra Walklate, and Les Humphreys. 2019. “Putting Coercive Control into Practice: Problems and Possibilities.” The British Journal of Criminology , July. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz041 .

Bishop, Charlotte, and Vanessa Bettinson. 2018. “Evidencing Domestic Violence*, Including Behaviour That Falls under the New Offence of ‘Controlling or Coercive Behaviour.’” The International Journal of Evidence & Proof vol. 22, no. 1: 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712717725535 .

Brennan, Iain, and Andy Myhill. 2021. Coercive control: Patterns in crimes, arrests and outcomes for a new domestic abuse offence . https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/jaxde .

Brennan, Iain, Andy Myhill, Giulia Tagliaferri, and Jacki Tapley. 2021. “Policing a new domestic abuse crime: effects of force-wide training on arrests for coercive control.” Policing and Society vol. 31, no. 10: 1153–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2020.1862838 .

Brennan, Iain R., Victoria Burton, Sinéad Gormally, and Nicola O’Leary. 2019. “Service Provider Difficulties in Operationalizing Coercive Control.” Violence Against Women vol. 25, no. 6: 635–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218797478 .

Burman, Michele, and Oona Brooks-Hay. 2018. “Aligning policy and law? The creation of a domestic abuse offence incorporating coercive control.” Criminology & Criminal Justice vol. 18, no. 1: 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817752223 .

Cairns, Ilona. 2020. “The Moorov doctrine and coercive control: Proving a ‘course of behaviour’ under s. 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018.” The International Journal of Evidence & Proof vol. 24, no. 4: 396–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712720959857 .

Chambers, Lori. 2021. “Submission for Bill C-247”. Accessed 20 April 2023. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/JUST/Brief/BR11101619/br-external/ChambersLori-e.pdf .

Cross, Pamela. 2022. “What to do about coercive control?” https://pamelacross.ca/what-to-do-about-coercive-control/ .

Cross, Pamela. 2021. “Should Canada criminalize coercive controlling behaviour? – Luke’s Place.” 2021. 18 February 2021. https://lukesplace.ca/should-canada-criminalize-coercive-controlling-behaviour/ .

Cross, Pamela. 2017. “Why are women sometimes charged with assaulting their partner when they are just trying to protect themselves or their kids?” https://lukesplace.ca/why-are-women-sometimes-charged-with-assaulting-their-partner-when-they-are-just-trying-to-protect-themselves-or-their-kids/ .

Douglas, Heather. 2018. “Do we need an offence of coercive control?” Precedent vol. 144 (January): 18–21. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PrecedentAULA/2018/6.html .

Gill, Carmen, and Mary Aspinall. n.d. Expert Report – Understanding Violence in Relationships (2022), 26. [P-003352 / COMM0058937]

Gill, Carmen, and Mary Aspinall. 2020. “Understanding Coercive Control in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence in Canada: How to Address the Issue through the Criminal Justice System?” Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/res/cor/UCC-CCC/index.html .

Haist, Allana. 2021. “Criminalizing Coercive Control in Canada: The Implications for Family Law.” Luke’s Place. https://lukesplace.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Stopping-Coercive-Control-by-Criminalization-Lukes-Place.pdf

Haist, Allana. 2021. “Criminalizing Coercive Control in Canada: The Implications for Family Law.” Luke’s Place, Oshawa, ON. https://lukesplace.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Stopping-Coercive-Control-by-Criminalization-Lukes-Place.pdf

Hampton, Robert l., Jaslean J. LaTaillade, Alicia Dacey and J.R. Marghi. 2008. “Evaluating Domestic Violence Interventions for Black Women.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma vol. 16, no. 3. Accessed 9 May 2023. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926770801925759 .

Hocking, Anwyn. 2022. “Intersectional Complexities of Coercive Control.” Parliamentary Library & Information Service, Parliament of Victoria. https://apo.org.au/node/317275 .

Home Office. 2021. “Review of the Controlling or Coercive Behaviour Offence.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/608bdba28fa8f51b909ca167/review-of-the-controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-offence.pdf .

Lee, Lianna, Wells, Lana, Gray, Shawna, and Elena Esina. 2020. “Building a case for using “Coercive Control” in Alberta: Discussion Paper.” Calgary, AB: The University of Calgary, Shift: The Project to End Domestic Violence. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/9e796e37-f550-400f-ab5a-ee95e65db3ab/content .

McMahon, Marilyn, and Paul McGorrery. 2020. Criminalising Coercive Control: Family Violence and the Criminal Law . Springer: Singapore.

Regroupement des maisons pour femme victimes de violence conjugale. 2023. “Position of the Regroupement Concerning the Criminalization of Coercive Control.” https://maisons-femmes.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Position-criminalization-coercive-control-RMFVVC.pdf .

Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland. 2015. “Not now, not ever.” Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General. https://www.justice.qld.gov.au/initiatives/end-domestic-family-violence/about/not-now-not-ever-report .

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. 2021. “The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercive Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships.” Committee Report no. 9 – JUST (43-2) – House of Commons of Canada. Accessed 28 March 2023. https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/JUST/report-9/ .

The Globe and Mail . 2022. “Coercive control can be a life or death issue in relationships. But few people even know how to recognize it,” 13 March 2022. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-coercive-control-can-be-a-life-or-death-issue-in-relationships-but-few/ .

Victorian Government. 2016. Royal Commission into Family Violence. http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Report-Recommendations.html .

Sisters Inside. 2021. “The State as Abuser: Coercive Control in the Colony.” https://www.womenstaskforce.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/691340/wsjt-submission-sisters-inside-and-institue-for-collaborative-race-research.pdf .

Stark, Evan. 2020. “The ‘Coercive Control Framework’: Making Law Work for Women.” In Criminalising Coercive Control . Springer, ed. M. McMahon and P. McGorrery, Singapore, 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0653-6_2 .

Tolmie, Julia. 2017. “Coercive control: To criminalize or not to criminalize?” Criminology & Criminal Justice vol. 18 (December): 174889581774671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817746712 .

Walklate, Sandra, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, and Jude McCulloch. 2018. “Is more law the answer? Seeking justice for victims of intimate partner violence through the reform of legal categories.” Criminology & Criminal Justice vol. 18, no. 1: 115–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817728561 .

Wangmann, Jane. 2022. Law Reform Processes and Criminalising Coercive Control, Australian Feminist Law Journal, vol. 48, no. 1, 57–86, http://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2022.2138186 .

Weiner, Cassandra. 2022. Coercive Control and the Criminal Law . London: Routledge.

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, please contact us .

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.