What I think was a very important judgment about how the family courts must learn to understand coercive control was published yesterday by Mr Justice Hayden, who previously published a judgment in the CoP case that highlights that this judge, at least, grasps it:

“The nature of the allegations included...can succinctly and accurately be summarised as involving complaints of 'coercive and controlling behaviour' on F’s part. In the Family Court, that expression is given no legal definition.”

Interestingly, Hayden then says he feels it needs none. But then he goes on to say:

"Understanding the scope and ambit of the behaviour however, requires a recognition that ‘coercion’ will usually involve a pattern of acts encompassing, for example, assault, intimidation, humiliation and threats."

"‘Controlling behaviour’ really involves a range of acts designed to render an individual subordinate and to corrode their sense of personal autonomy."

"Key to both behaviours is an appreciation of a ‘pattern’ or ‘a series of acts’, the impact of which must be assessed cumulatively and rarely in isolation."

He then goes on to note that "there has been very little reported case law in the Family Court considering coercive and controlling behaviour," and specifically says "I have taken the opportunity below, to highlight the insidious reach of this facet of domestic abuse."

His conclusion? "My strong impression, having heard the disturbing evidence in this case, is that it requires greater awareness and, I strongly suspect, more focused training for the relevant professionals."

I'm still reading the judgment, but the police do not come off well. At all. They took a coercively controlling man at his word, uncritically accepting his version of events, and isolating his wife from her parents who were desperate to help her - by designating them the abusers

Okay, I’ve scrolled to the end of the judgment now, without reading the middle yet (it’s long, and the kids need to come off screens)..

Hayden has something to say about Scott Schedules. These are tables into which someone alleging DA or coercive control has to put in particular instances of the abuse. They are, in my opinion, such as it is, utterly useless when it comes to trying to demonstrate coercive control

Loads of family lawyers have told me the same. Also, people are often only allowed by judges to make a maximum of five or six allegations. I've heard it done. This is ludicrous. It is not how domestic abuse happens, and it is impossible to show coercive control in this way.

I've read transcripts where judges wrangle unattractively with barristers to 'knock out' allegations as ‘not of the highest’ and ‘wouldn’t impact on my decision about contact’… but this leaves the complainant having to prove only the most serious allegation, ie of rape

Which if they don’t manage to, leaves them with absolutely zero opportunity to show they have been coercively controlled. And coercive control is highly dangerous behaviour.

So I believe Scott Schedules put complainants in an impossible position. This is what Hayden says about them:

"An intense focus on particular and specified incidents may be a counterproductive exercise. It carries the risk of obscuring the serious nature of harm perpetrated in a pattern of behaviour."

"This was the issue highlighted in the final report of the expert panel to the Ministry of Justice: 'Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases' (June 2020)."

"It is, I hope, clear from my analysis of the evidence in this case, that I consider Scott Schedules to have such severe limitations in this particular sphere as to render them both ineffective and frequently unsuitable."

"I would go further, and question whether they are a useful tool more generally in factual disputes in Family Law cases. The subtleties of human behaviour are not easily receptive to the confinement and constraint of a Schedule."

Interestingly, having not pulled any punches... he tries to pull back a little bit! "I draw back from going further because Scott Schedules are commonly utilised and have been given much judicial endorsement."

" I do not discount the possibility that there will be cases when they have real forensic utility. "

But.. he then issues a direct invitation to the Court of Appeal - which is of course hearing a conjoined appeal next week, on four domestic abuse cases..

"Whether a Scott Schedule is appropriate will be a matter for the judge and the advocates in each case unless, of course, the Court of Appeal signals a change of approach."

Right, that's me done. Gotta get dressed and the kids out.