## Introduction

Yes. Emotional abuse is a form of domestic abuse and, in England and Wales, it can be a criminal offence. Since 2015, the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour has recognised serious psychological and emotional harm within intimate and family relationships. This guide explains how the law works, what prosecutors must prove, and how courts sentence offenders.

Note: Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate but similar offences under their own statutes.

## What You'll Learn

- What “controlling or coercive behaviour” means under section 76 Serious Crime Act 2015
- Who counts as “personally connected” and how the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 widened the scope
- The four elements the prosecution must prove
- What a “serious effect” looks like in daily life
- Sentencing ranges, aggravating/mitigating factors, and practical evidence points

## Core Concepts

### What counts as controlling or coercive behaviour

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship.

- Coercive behaviour: a pattern of acts such as threats, intimidation, humiliation, and other abuse used to harm, punish or frighten the victim.
- Controlling behaviour: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate or dependent, for example by isolating them from support, controlling their finances, restricting everyday activities, or monitoring their communications.

Examples (not an exhaustive list):

- Isolating someone from friends, family, and professional support
- Monitoring calls, messages, emails, social media, or using tracking apps and smart devices
- Dictating what someone wears, eats, or when they can sleep
- Withholding money or forcing someone to account for every purchase
- Humiliating someone in private or public, including through degrading messages
- Threats against children, pets, or to spread private information
- Controlling access to medication, transport, work, or education

The offence targets patterns of behaviour that may fall short of serious physical violence but cause severe psychological and emotional harm.

### The elements the prosecution must prove

To secure a conviction, the prosecution must establish all of the following:

1. Repeated or continuous behaviour

- The accused engaged in behaviour towards the complainant on more than one occasion.
- A one-off incident is not enough.

1. Personal connection

- The parties are, or have been, in an intimate relationship; or
- They are family members; or
- They live together (or previously lived together) in the same household.

Update: Changes introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (in force from 2023) mean the offence applies even if former partners are no longer living together.

1. Serious effect on the victim

- Either the victim feared, on at least two occasions, that violence would be used against them; or
- The behaviour caused serious alarm or distress which had a substantial adverse effect on the victim’s day-to-day activities.

1. Knowledge

- The accused knew, or ought to have known, that the behaviour would have a serious effect.

“Ought to have known” is an objective test: would a reasonable person in the same circumstances know their behaviour would have that effect?

### Serious effect and day-to-day impact

The law gives two routes to prove “serious effect”:

- Fear of violence: the victim feared violence would be used at least twice.
- Serious alarm or distress with a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities.

What “substantial adverse effect” can look like:

- Stopping or changing social activities or contact with others
- Deterioration in physical or mental health (e.g., anxiety, depression)
- Changes to home routines, including sleep patterns or diet
- Absence or poor attendance at school, college, or training
- Changes in work patterns, performance, or taking leave due to distress
- Installing extra locks or altering routes and daily schedules to avoid the abuser

Evidence can include diaries, messages, GPS data, bank statements, GP or counselling notes, workplace or school records, and witness statements.

### Defences and reasonableness

There is a limited statutory defence where the accused can show:

- They believed they were acting in the victim’s best interests; and
- The behaviour was reasonable in the circumstances.

This defence does not apply if the prosecution proves the victim feared violence on at least two occasions. The court will look at all the circumstances, including any relevant health or care context. Cultural or personal preferences are not, by themselves, a justification for controlling another person.

### Sentencing, harm, and culpability

- Maximum statutory penalty: up to 5 years’ imprisonment on indictment (plus fine, or both).
- Sentencing guideline ranges (England and Wales): up to 4 years’ custody for the most serious cases, down to community orders for lower harm/culpability.

Courts assess:

- Culpability (blameworthiness): role, planning, intent, persistence, and whether multiple methods of control were used; behaviour aimed at causing fear, humiliation, or degradation indicates higher culpability.
- Harm: psychological impact, fear of violence, and the level and duration of adverse effects on daily life; physical injury is not required.

Aggravating factors may include:

- Abuse continued over a prolonged period
- Presence of children, or abuse directed at children or pets
- Use of technology to track, humiliate, or threaten
- Breach of a court order (e.g., restraining order, non-molestation order)
- Offending on bail or while under investigation

Mitigating factors may include:

- Genuine remorse and steps taken to address behaviour
- Mental health issues linked to the conduct (with evidence)
- Limited role, or evidence the behaviour was not planned
- Early guilty plea (reduces the sentence in line with guideline credit)

## Key Examples or Case Studies

### Case study 1: Isolation, threats, and financial control (intimate partners)

- Facts: A partner monitors messages, restricts contact with friends, takes control of all bank accounts, issues threats when challenged, and sends humiliating voice notes. The behaviour persists for a year. The victim changes job hours, stops seeing friends, and starts antidepressants.
- Likely analysis:
  - Repeated/continuous behaviour: Yes
  - Personally connected: Yes (intimate partners)
  - Serious effect: Serious alarm/distress with substantial adverse effect on daily life
  - Knowledge: The accused at least ought to have known

- Sentencing outlook: Depending on persistence, methods used, and recorded impact, this could fall within Category 1 harm; higher culpability where humiliation and multiple control methods are present.

### Case study 2: Post-separation coercive control

- Facts: After a break-up, the former partner sends hundreds of messages, threatens to share intimate images, turns up uninvited at work, and uses a shared smart-home account to interfere with heating and lights. The victim changes travel routes and stays with relatives for safety.
- Likely analysis:
  - Repeated/continuous behaviour: Yes
  - Personally connected: Yes (former intimate partners; offence applies even if not cohabiting)
  - Serious effect: Fear of violence on more than one occasion and serious alarm/distress
  - Knowledge: Strong evidence from threats and actions

- Sentencing outlook: Aggravated by tech-enabled abuse, persistence, and impact on work and living arrangements; potential for a restraining order on conviction.

### Case study 3: Family member control within the same household

- Facts: An adult child lives with a parent who dictates clothing, restricts meals, prevents medical appointments, and removes access to money. The adult child stops seeing friends and misses college.
- Likely analysis:
  - Repeated/continuous behaviour: Yes
  - Personally connected: Yes (family members living together)
  - Serious effect: Serious alarm/distress with substantial adverse effect on daily life
  - Knowledge: Parent knew or ought to have known

- Sentencing outlook: Harm to education and health elevates seriousness; court may consider rehabilitation requirements alongside protective orders.

## Practical Applications

- For police and prosecutors
  - Build the pattern: gather a timeline, not just incidents in isolation.
  - Secure digital evidence: messages, call logs, email, social media, app data, GPS, smart-home logs.
  - Document the impact: GP records, counselling notes, employer statements, school/college attendance, witness accounts from friends/family.
  - Check personal connection and post-separation applicability.
  - Consider protective orders (e.g., restraining orders on conviction or acquittal if justified).

- For defence practitioners
  - Test “repeated or continuous” and “serious effect” with precision.
  - Assess the knowledge element and the reasonableness defence (where applicable).
  - Obtain expert reports on mental health where relevant.
  - Advise clients on strict compliance with bail conditions and no contact.

- For support workers and advisors
  - Encourage detailed safety planning and evidence-keeping (diaries, screenshots, bank statements).
  - Record changes in routine, work, schooling, or health to show adverse effects.
  - Signpost to civil remedies: non-molestation orders and occupation orders in the Family Court.
  - Explain that physical injury is not a requirement; patterns and impact matter.

- For individuals worried about their behaviour
  - Seek help early: speak to your GP, counselling services, or behaviour change programmes.
  - Stop contact if asked and avoid monitoring or tracking.
  - Get legal advice before communicating with the complainant.

## Summary Checklist

- Emotional abuse can amount to criminal domestic abuse in England and Wales.
- Offence: controlling or coercive behaviour under s76 Serious Crime Act 2015.
- Prosecution must prove:
  - Repeated or continuous behaviour
  - Parties are personally connected (includes ex-partners and certain family)
  - Serious effect (fear of violence twice, or serious distress with substantial adverse effect)
  - Knowledge (knew or ought to have known)

- Substantial adverse effect can include isolation, health decline, work/school changes, and altered routines.
- Maximum statutory penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment; guideline ranges up to 4 years.
- Courts weigh culpability (role, planning, humiliation, duration) and harm (impact and fear).
- Preserve evidence: communications, financial records, tech data, medical and workplace records.
- Consider protective measures: bail conditions, restraining orders, non-molestation orders.
- Limited “best interests” defence may apply only where behaviour was reasonable and fear of violence is not proven.

## Quick Reference

| Topic                | Law/Guidance                    | Key Point                                                           |
| -------------------- | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Offence              | Serious Crime Act 2015 s.76     | Pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour is criminal            |
| Personally connected | SCA 2015 (as amended 2021/2023) | Includes current/ex intimate partners and certain family            |
| Serious effect tests | SCA 2015 s.76(4)-(5)            | Fear of violence (2+ times) or serious distress with adverse effect |
| Mental element       | SCA 2015 s.76(1)(d), (5)        | Knew or ought to have known (objective test)                        |
| Maximum penalty      | SCA 2015 s.76(11)               | Up to 5 years’ imprisonment on indictment                           |
| Sentencing ranges    | Sentencing Council (2018–)      | Guideline range up to 4 years; assess harm and culpability          |


Is Emotional Abuse Domestic Violence? UK Law on Controlling or Coercive Behaviour