Coercive Control: The Crime That Defies the Current Legal Framework
‍

When New South Wales introduced coercive control legislation in July 2024, it was hailed as a milestone in recognising that domestic violence is not always physical; it can be a sustained campaign of control, fear, and domination. But a year on, the data shows that translating that recognition into justice is proving far more complex than anticipated.

According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), police recorded 297 incidents of coercive control in the first twelve months of the law’s operation. Each case involved, on average, four distinct controlling behaviours. The most common were harassment, monitoring, financial abuse, and threats. Yet despite this volume, only nine charges were laid, and just three cases finalised in court. Two were withdrawn; one resulted in a guilty plea. No contested trials have yet tested the legislation. “The small number of charges highlights the complexity of investigating and prosecuting this form of abuse.” Jackie Fitzgerald, Executive Director, BOCSAR

‍

Why the Numbers Matter

Coercive control is unlike traditional crimes. It’s not an isolated incident; it’s a pattern of behaviour that unfolds slowly, deliberately, and often invisibly. Traditional criminal law is designed to respond to single, identifiable acts (assaults, threats, or damage) not months or years of manipulation and entrapment. Building a prosecutable case means proving intent and control across time, often using evidence spread across messages, finances, and surveillance data. This process is lengthy, complex, and emotionally taxing for survivors who may still be living under threat.

A Crime That Challenges Legal Design

Coercive control exposes the limits of a justice system built for visible crimes. It demands new thinking; legal, procedural, and technological. Just as the Drug Court was created in 2000 to address the unique dynamics of substance-related offending, coercive control may require its own specialised court and multidisciplinary model.

Technology as Part of the Solution

One major challenge is evidence. Survivors often lack safe ways to document patterns of coercion. Technology can help bridge that gap. The upcoming Safe Call Up platform has been designed to enable safe, hands-free documentation and reporting of coercive behaviours. By capturing evidence over time, discreetly and securely, survivors can build the kind of narrative that this law requires; one that shows the pattern, not just the moment. This kind of innovation is essential if the law is to deliver on its promise.

Beyond Symbolic Reform

The introduction of coercive control laws was a vital step forward, but legislation alone isn’t enough. Without the systems, training, and tools to make it enforceable, we risk creating symbolic laws that fail survivors in practice. What’s needed now is;

• Specialist training for police and prosecutors.
• Legislative refinement to recognise cumulative harm.
• Technological innovation to make patterns of abuse visible.
• A justice framework that reflects how coercive control truly operates.

Survivors deserve more than headlines. They deserve a system that sees them, understands them, and protects them.

‍