Coercive Control and Criminal Responsibility: Victims Who Kill Their Abusers

Midson, Brenda

doi:10.1007/s10609-016-9292-5

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a comparative analysis of two cases and their associated judgements in New Zealand (NZ), 1 Midson (2016) also considers the possibilities of coercive control as a specific defence for murder. Using these two cases as illustrative, she explores the question of culpability and responsibility and their relevance for such cases.…”

Section: Coercive Control In Court: the Use Of Expert Testimony In Crmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On that basis, it is not just or fair to label these victims as 'murderers' or 'killers', even though the criminal justice system might rightly hold them responsible to some degree. (Midson 2016(Midson : 1272 The tension between culpability and responsibility in cases that lack physical evidence (e.g., of injury or the use of tracking devices and so on) in support of a partial or complete defence to murder has recently been tested in England and Wales in the appeal case of Sally Challen. In February 2019, Challen successfully appealed her 2011 conviction for the murder of her husband, with the Court of Appeal quashing her original conviction for murder.…”

Section: Coercive Control In Court: the Use Of Expert Testimony In Crmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Criminalisation of Coercive Control: The Power of Law?

Walklate

Fitz‐Gibbon

2019

Int J for Crime, Justice & Social Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Making sense of intimate partner violence has long been seen through the lens of coercive control. However, despite the longstanding presence of this concept, it is only in recent years that efforts have been made to recognise coercive control within the legal context. This article examines the extent to which the law per se has the power, or indeed the capacity, to respond to what is known about coercive control. To do so, it charts the varied ways in which coercive control has entered legal discourse in different jurisdictions and maps these efforts onto what is evidenced about the nature and extent of coercive control in everyday life. This article then places the legal and the everyday side by side and considers the unintended consequences of ‘coercive control creep’. In conclusion, it is suggested that the criminalisation of coercive control only serves to fail those it is intended to protect.

show abstract

Section: Coercive Control In Court: the Use Of Expert Testimony In Crmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coercive Control In Court: the Use Of Expert Testimony In Crmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Criminalisation of Coercive Control: The Power of Law?

Walklate

Fitz‐Gibbon

2019

Int J for Crime, Justice & Social Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It may be in cases of intimate partner homicide where a coerced woman kills her partner such evidence is forthcoming, although the difficulties that such women face should not be overlooked (Sheehy, 2014; Sheehy et al, 2012). In these contexts, as Midson (2016: 424) states: ‘[i]f the accused’s choices are constrained or his or her will is overborne by the will of another, the moral fault of the accused is, or at least may be, absent’. In other words they have access to a potential defence and/or plea of mitigation.…”

Section: Translating the Clinical To The Criminalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is more law the answer? Seeking justice for victims of intimate partner violence through the reform of legal categories

Walklate

Fitz‐Gibbon

McCulloch

2017

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2015 in England and Wales a new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour was introduced with the aim of improving legal responses to intimate partner violence. Recognizing the historical limits of legal interventions in this area, this article examines the efficacy of coercive control as a conceptual device for improving access to law and justice outcomes for women victims. To do so, it considers the problems and possibilities of translating a concept generated from clinical practice into legal practice alongside an exploration of the potential unintended consequences of this new offence. The gendered analysis undertaken here reveals the limitations of framing women’s experiences as ‘coercive control’ in law and concludes that, in the case of coercive control, more law is not the answer to improving responses to intimate partner violence.

show abstract

“…Her response does not look like that usually associated with a partial defence requiring a loss of control, as she carried out the killing a day after realising he was seeing another woman. While s. 54(2) removes the suddenness requirement, it is tempered by the condition in s. 54(4) that the killing was not a 'considered desire for revenge'. Edwards has raised concerns about this condition, arguing that it may ensure that premeditated killings fall under the ambit of murder, although the courts will have 'to discern between cases which are deliberate killings involving mixed inculpatory motives' which are evident in cases of coercive control and 'non-domestic cases where there was considerable planning'.…”

Section: Loss Of Control Manslaughtermentioning

confidence: 99%

Aligning Partial Defences to Murder with the Offence of Coercive or Controlling Behaviour

Bettinson

2019

The Journal of Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article will reflect on the adoption of s. 76 Serious Crime Act 2015 which criminalises coercive or controlling behaviour in an intimate or family relationship and considers an argument for aligning partial defences to murder with it. It takes inspiration from the case of Sally Challen, granted leave to appeal her murder conviction at the Court of Appeal on 1st March 2018. Leave was granted after her lawyers successfully persuaded the court that the introduction of s. 76 Serious Crime Act 2015 amounted to fresh evidence in her defence that was unavailable at the time of her trial in 2011. Lady Justice Rafferty stated that, “It should be plainly understood that the application made today is but one step in what, it is hoped by counsel, those who instruct her and many others concerned in this case, will be a full detailed exploration of the position, based on scholarship, learning and clinical expertise, which should prevail now… A jury, it is argued, should, with the benefit of that learning, be enabled to reach a clear settled conclusion on the basis of an understanding which, it is said, was not available to the jury in 2011.” The arguments at her appeal will seek to reduce her murder conviction to manslaughter, providing an opportunity for this article to explore the complexities of aligning the partial defences to murder with the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour.

show abstract

Coercive Control and Criminal Responsibility: Victims Who Kill Their Abusers

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

The Criminalisation of Coercive Control: The Power of Law?

The Criminalisation of Coercive Control: The Power of Law?

Is more law the answer? Seeking justice for victims of intimate partner violence through the reform of legal categories

Aligning Partial Defences to Murder with the Offence of Coercive or Controlling Behaviour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About