This guide is maintained as a current resource for September 2026 and covers only the laws of England and Wales. Information is for general guidance, not legal advice. Consult a qualified solicitor for advice specific to your situation.
In‑depth guide to the legal threshold for coercive control in England and Wales, explaining how coercive control is defined under law, the statutory requirements for criminal prosecution and protective orders like DAPOs, how evidence meets the required tests, and practical implications for victims and solicitors.
Coercive control is recognised by law in England and Wales as a serious form of domestic abuse that can cause significant psychological, emotional and practical harm over time. Because it is often non‑violent and cumulative, the legal system has developed specific criteria and thresholds to determine both when conduct amounts to coercive control for criminal liability and when courts can impose protective orders to prevent further abuse. This article explains those legal thresholds, the statutory framework, how coercive control is defined in law, how evidence meets the required threshold, and the practical implications for victims, prosecutors and practitioners.
What Coercive Control Is Under the Law
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines abusive behaviour for the purposes of protective orders and support systems to include controlling or coercive behaviour alongside physical, sexual, economic and psychological abuse. This broad definition applies in civil and criminal contexts where protection and intervention are necessary to safeguard victims.
In criminal law, coercive control is specifically embodied in the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, created by section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. This offence recognises that abuse is not limited to single incidents of violence but can be a pattern of ongoing conduct designed to dominate, intimidate and isolate a victim.
Threshold for Criminal Offence of Coercive Control
For conduct to meet the threshold for the criminal offence under section 76 of the 2015 Act, there are several statutory requirements:
1. Personal Connection
The perpetrator and victim must be “personally connected” when the behaviour occurs. This includes current or former intimate partners and family members. Amendments under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 removed the requirement that partners must live together, meaning ex‑partners or family members who do not share a household can still be connected for the offence.
2. Pattern of Behaviour
The behaviour must be repeated or continuous. Single incidents or isolated acts generally do not meet the statutory definition; instead, the law targets a sustained pattern of conduct.
3. Serious Effect on the Victim
The behaviour must have a serious effect on the victim. Statutory guidance and jurisprudence indicate this means the conduct has either:
- Caused the victim to fear that violence will be used against them on at least two occasions, or
- Had a substantial adverse effect on their day‑to‑day activities - for example, significantly limiting their freedom, social life, financial independence or emotional wellbeing.
4. Knowledge or Reasonable Foreseeability
The perpetrator must have known, or ought to have known, that their behaviour would have that serious effect on the victim. This element is judged objectively, by reference to what a reasonable person would have understood about the impact of such conduct.
When all these criteria are satisfied, a coercive control offence exists. A conviction can lead to a prison sentence of up to five years and/or an unlimited fine.
Threshold for Protective Orders Involving Coercive Control
Several civil and hybrid protective orders can address coercive control behaviour before or without criminal conviction, including Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs) and related notices under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. These aim to prevent further abuse, including coercive control.
To obtain a DAPO, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities (civil standard of proof) that:
- The perpetrator has been abusive towards a person aged 16 or over to whom they are personally connected, and abuse includes controlling or coercive behaviour;
- The DAPO is necessary and proportionate to protect that person from domestic abuse or the risk of domestic abuse; and
- The person against whom the order is sought is aged 18 or over.
This is a lower threshold than the criminal test because a DAPO can be made without a conviction. A court applies the civil standard of proof - that is, that it is more likely than not that abusive behaviour occurred.
Interaction Between Criminal Charges and Orders
Protective orders like DAPOs operate independently of criminal prosecutions. A victim can seek a DAPO even if no criminal charges are brought, provided the civil criteria are met, including where coercive control is part of domestic abuse.
Police can also issue Domestic Abuse Protection Notices (DAPNs) immediately after an incident where they reasonably believe the victim has been abused and that protection is necessary; this creates immediate short‑term measures while a court considers a DAPO application.
Evidence and Meeting the Threshold
For both criminal prosecution and civil orders, evidence is key. Supporting proof may include, for example:
- Records of repeated unwanted contact or restrictions on freedom;
- Testimony about emotional, financial or psychological impact;
- Communications (text, email, social media) demonstrating patterns of controlling behaviour;
- Witness statements and reports from professionals (such as social workers, psychologists or police).
Because coercive control tends to involve patterns rather than isolated acts, case‑builders often present evidence demonstrating a course of conduct over time, including showing the adverse impact on the victim's daily life.
Practical Implications for Victims and Legal Users
Understanding the threshold to meet coercive control provisions helps victims and advisers decide on the most appropriate legal response:
- In criminal cases, prosecutors assess whether the statutory elements are met and whether evidence supports charging. Courts require a pattern of behaviour and a serious effect on the victim.
- In civil protective order cases, such as DAPOs, the focus is on necessity and proportionate protection on the balance of probabilities.
- Because the civil threshold is lower, a protective order can sometimes be obtained even where a criminal conviction is not feasible.
These legal thresholds aim to balance the need for safety and protection with fairness in adjudication, ensuring that coercive control does not go unaddressed simply because it lacks visible physical evidence.
Key Takeaways
The legal threshold for coercive control in England and Wales differs between criminal liability and protective orders:
- For criminal prosecution under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, coercive control requires a pattern of repeated or continuous behaviour that has a serious effect on a victim who is personally connected to the perpetrator, with knowledge or reasonable foreseeability of that effect.
- For Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (DAPOs), the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the perpetrator has been abusive (including coercive control) and that the order is necessary and proportionate to protect the victim.
Understanding these thresholds enables victims, solicitors and practitioners to pursue appropriate protective and criminal justice routes where coercive control has occurred or is likely to recur.
