CCChat-Magazine_Issue-20

M: There is a question I’d like to ask you,
because it’s something I struggle to
understand, why is it that sec 76 was only
going to apply to those in an intimate
relationship or in a family living under the
same roof but it didn’t include postseparation
abuse and why does the
stalking law have to step in when the
relationship has ended because that
doesn’t make sense to me at all. It leaves
all kinds of gaps.
It’s been really exciting, as there has
been a lot of interest in the new law, both
in the UK but also around the world.
While it was/is a truly progressive step I
think the overall message from my
research unfortunately is that we could be
doing this a lot better.
M: That’s certainly how I feel. The law felt
a bit rushed through without enough
thought going into implementation.
C: I think it was rushed through. The
consultation period was only six weeks,
the equivalent consultation in Scotland
ran for around eight years, so that gives
you an idea of the different approaches
taken.
M:Wow! That’s mind-blowing.
C: Yes, so Scotland really did it properly.
They ran consultations with survivor
groups, they’ve really worked with
Women’s Aid Scotland and, as a result,
they’ve crafted a piece of law that
potentially works more effectively than
ours, but it’s early days. The Domestic
Abuse (Scotland) Act (aka DASA) only
came into force on April 1st 2019.
C: No, it doesn’t make sense. In essence,
there are two parts to my answer to that
question. First of all, I can tell you what
was happening at the time to tell you why
the law was drafted the way it is and then
secondly, I can tell you a bit about what
we’re trying to do to get it put right.
Initially, in the House of Commons, when
it was debated, at the end of the six week
consultation, it was right at the end of the
coalition government and they were
desperate to get something through.
There was only one debate in the House
of Commons and the Attorney General at
the time, who was Robert Buckland,
didn’t really understand coercive control
at all and, to be honest, I don’t think
Theresa May understood it herself.
The consultation was limited and
although this sounds strange now, no
effort was made to unpick what was
meant by ‘coercive control’ at all. As a
result there is no definition of coercive
control in section 76, and police and
prosecutors struggle as a result. One
particular issue is that it is constructed as
emotional or psychological abuse,
whereas we all know coercive control
involves physical behaviours.
To an extent, that’s still a misconception
that’s run with by the popular press. You
know, you’ll often read about a case and
you’ll see ‘ the emotional abuse was
prosecuted’, or whatever. Connected to
this is the mistake that had bigger
repercussions actually, which is that
Buckland constructed coercive control as
stalking within a relationship.
Making The Invisible Visible