Coercive Control as the Context for Intimate Partner Violence: The Challenge for the Legal System

Wangmann, J

Coercive Control as the Context for Intimate Partner Violence: The Challenge for the Legal System

Wangmann, J

Permalink

Publisher:: Springer
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Criminalising Coercive Control Family Violence and the Criminal Law, 2020, pp. 219-242
Issue Date:: 2020-03-10

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Criminalising_Coercive_Control_Family_Violence_and..._----_(11_Coercive_Control_as_the_Context_for_Intimate_Partner_Violence_The_C...).pdf	Published version	376.12 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Wangmann, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0812-4214
dc.contributor.editor	McMahon, M
dc.contributor.editor	McGorrery, P
dc.date.accessioned	2020-08-17T00:55:05Z
dc.date.available	2020-08-17T00:55:05Z
dc.date.issued	2020-03-10
dc.identifier.citation	Criminalising Coercive Control Family Violence and the Criminal Law, 2020, pp. 219-242
dc.identifier.isbn	9811506523
dc.identifier.isbn	9789811506529
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/142127
dc.description.abstract	The last 30 years have seen considerable change in the legal landscape to better address the harm of intimate partner violence (IPV), including the introduction of stalking and intimidation offences, as well as civil protection orders, yet many gaps and issues remain. The creation of an offence that seeks to capture the harm of coercive control is presented as one way in which to fill some of the gaps between the experience of IPV and the way the criminal law has traditionally conceived of this harm. In this chapter, I raise questions about whether such an offence will achieve its aims if attention is not also paid to the practice and implementation of current (and new) laws. In particular, I discuss the dominance of the incident framework not only in terms of criminal law responses, but also in terms of those responses designed to better address the pattern of IPV, namely, civil protection orders. A key concern of this chapter is the conceptual gap that emerges between the intentions of law reform and the practice or implementation of that law In so doing, I draw on recent cautions voiced by Julia Tolmie (2018a) and Sandra Walklate and colleagues (2018). I argue that an understanding of coercive control is necessary for all legal engagements that seek to address the harm of IPV, and that if attention was centred on whether there should be a discrete offence it may distract from the need to simultaneously do more work to ensure that a deeper understanding of coercive control informs all areas of legal practice.
dc.format.extent	12
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Springer
dc.relation.ispartof	Criminalising Coercive Control Family Violence and the Criminal Law
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/978-981-15-0653-6_11
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	Coercive Control as the Context for Intimate Partner Violence: The Challenge for the Legal System
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.for	1801 Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - LRC - Law Research Centre
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	true
dc.date.updated	2020-08-17T00:54:54Z
pubs.place-of-publication	Springer Singapore
pubs.publication-status	Published
dc.location	Springer Singapore

Abstract:

The last 30 years have seen considerable change in the legal landscape to better address the harm of intimate partner violence (IPV), including the introduction of stalking and intimidation offences, as well as civil protection orders, yet many gaps and issues remain. The creation of an offence that seeks to capture the harm of coercive control is presented as one way in which to fill some of the gaps between the experience of IPV and the way the criminal law has traditionally conceived of this harm. In this chapter, I raise questions about whether such an offence will achieve its aims if attention is not also paid to the practice and implementation of current (and new) laws. In particular, I discuss the dominance of the incident framework not only in terms of criminal law responses, but also in terms of those responses designed to better address the pattern of IPV, namely, civil protection orders. A key concern of this chapter is the conceptual gap that emerges between the intentions of law reform and the practice or implementation of that law In so doing, I draw on recent cautions voiced by Julia Tolmie (2018a) and Sandra Walklate and colleagues (2018). I argue that an understanding of coercive control is necessary for all legal engagements that seek to address the harm of IPV, and that if attention was centred on whether there should be a discrete offence it may distract from the need to simultaneously do more work to ensure that a deeper understanding of coercive control informs all areas of legal practice.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/142127