Controlling and coercive behaviour (CCB) has been recognised as a criminal offence in England and Wales since 2015, under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act. It encompasses patterns of intimidation, isolation, financial restriction, or surveillance that cause serious and lasting harm.
Almost ten years on, the latest data shows striking regional differences in how often CBB charges are brought. Some police forces have recorded sharp increases, while others have seen steep declines. These statistics provide the starting point for this article, but our focus is not on criminal prosecutions alone.
At Woolley & Co, we explore what these trends mean for families navigating the family courts. The discussion explores how coercive control is raised in divorce applications, how it influences child arrangements under Practice Direction 12J, and why it is often overlooked in financial proceedings.
We also examine how patterns of control might persist beyond separation, where the litigation process can sometimes be perceived as another avenue through which control is exerted.
By connecting the criminal statistics to these family law realities, we aim to show how regional inconsistencies in charging rates reveal gaps in protection for victims, and why consistent recognition of coercive control in family proceedings is essential for safeguarding survivors and ensuring fair outcomes.
Which regional police forces are seeing the biggest change in charging rates?
Top 10 police forces for the biggest increase in charging rates
These forces recorded the largest rises in the percentage of CBB offences charged or summonsed between 2023/24 and 2024/25. In the table, the “Difference in %” shows the year‑on‑year increase:
| Position | Police Force Name | % of Offences Charged or Summonsed (2023/24) | % of Offences Charged or Summonsed (2024/25) | Difference in % |
| 1 | Dyfed-Powys | 4.05% | 8.65% | 4.60% |
| 2 | South Wales | 10.11% | 11.16% | 1.05% |
| 3 | Northumbria | 8.77% | 9.68% | 0.91% |
| 4 | West Midlands | 2.00% | 2.51% | 0.51% |
| 5 | North Yorkshire | 4.69% | 4.97% | 0.28% |
| 6 | Lancashire | 12.14% | 12.41% | 0.26% |
| 7 | Lincolnshire | 5.02% | 5.24% | 0.22% |
| 8 | Warwickshire | 7.89% | 7.92% | 0.03% |
| 9 | Surrey | 9.53% | 9.45% | 0.08% |
| 10 | Humberside | 4.62% | 4.53% | 0.08% |
Dyfed-Powys recorded the biggest improvement, more than doubling its rate year-on-year.
These figures suggest that recognition of coercive control is increasing in some areas, yet for families, the real impact lies not in prosecution rates, but in how such behaviours shape divorce cases, child arrangements, and financial proceedings.
Top 10 police forces for the steepest drop in charging rates
These forces recorded the largest year‑on‑year drops in charging rates for CCB offences. Here, the “Difference in %” shows the drop from 2023/24 to 2024/25:
| Position | Police Force Name | % of Offences Charged or Summonsed (2023/24) | % of Offences Charged or Summonsed (2024/25) | Difference in % |
| 1 | City of London | 7.69% | 0.00% | 7.69% |
| 2 | Nottinghamshire | 13.33% | 7.09% | 6.24% |
| 3 | Wiltshire | 10.26% | 4.29% | 5.97% |
| 4 | Cumbria | 8.36% | 3.27% | 5.08% |
| 5 | Suffolk | 10.26% | 5.95% | 4.32% |
| 6 | Cambridgeshire | 8.59% | 4.39% | 4.20% |
| 7 | Derbyshire | 5.48% | 1.79% | 3.68% |
| 8 | West Mercia | 10.74% | 7.44% | 3.30% |
| 9 | Leicestershire | 7.01% | 4.07% | 2.94% |
| 10 | Gloucestershire | 3.78% | 1.14% | 2.64% |
City of London saw the steepest fall, dropping from 7.69% to 0% (although it should be noted that due to small sample sizes, swings here can be exaggerated).
These declines are concerning because they mean fewer cases of coercive control are progressing through the criminal courts.
For families, however, the impact goes beyond prosecution statistics. Whether or not charges are pursued, patterns of control appear in family law disputes, during divorce, child arrangements, or financial proceedings.
How does Coercive Control pervade in family law?
Coercive control in divorce cases
Although there are no official statistics on how often coercive control is cited in divorce applications, family lawyers report that it is a common feature of modern matrimonial cases.
Survivors frequently describe enduring patterns of emotional manipulation, financial restriction, or social isolation that shaped their marriages and continue to influence the separation process.
These experiences are not confined to the background; they affect every stage of family proceedings, from a parent’s ability to feel safe in mediation, to decisions on child arrangements, and even the fairness of financial settlements.
Allegations in children proceedings: PD12J in practice
According to Resolution, ‘allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour feature in some degree in the vast majority of private children cases that come before the Family Court.’
Where any allegations of domestic abuse are raised, family courts are required to follow Practice Direction 12J (PD12J). This guidance places child safety as the paramount concern before decisions on contact or living arrangements are made.
In theory, PD12J requires courts to:
- Investigate allegations thoroughly, often through a fact-finding hearing.
- Consider whether the child and the parent making the allegations can safely have contact with the alleged abuser.
- Where necessary, apply protective measures such as supervised contact, indirect contact only, or restrictions on decision-making.
Inconsistent application of PD12J
In reality, the application of PD12J can be uneven:
- Some courts rigorously apply the guidance, ensuring allegations are tested and protective steps are put in place where risks are found.
- Others are less consistent, progressing cases without detailed fact-finding or applying protective measures only in a limited way.
Reports from both practitioners and advocacy groups suggest that this inconsistency leaves parents uncertain about what to expect, with outcomes varying depending on the judge, the court’s resources, and the extent to which coercive control is treated as seriously as physical violence.
This mirrors the “postcode lottery” highlighted in the charging statistics; just as the police approach varies across the country, so too does the consistency with which family courts apply PD12J when allegations of coercive control are raised.
Coercive control in financial proceedings
According to Resolution’s 2024 report on Domestic Abuse in Financial Remedy Proceedings, around 80% of family justice professionals believe that domestic abuse, including economic abuse and coercive control, is not sufficiently taken into account when courts divide assets.
This exposes a clear gap between the lived experiences of survivors, many of whom describe years of financial restriction or manipulation, and the current legal framework.
Under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, “conduct” will only influence financial awards where it would be inequitable for the court to ignore it, a very high threshold that most cases do not meet.
Unless the behaviour has had a direct and evidenced financial impact, such as depleting assets, the court will rarely adjust awards solely on the basis of a history of coercive or controlling behaviour.
In practice, the financial remedies court often works under significant time constraints, which means there is little scope to examine patterns of coercive control in depth.
As a result, while coercive control is frequently raised in financial proceedings, it rarely has a recognised impact on the final settlement.
This leaves some victims feeling that the financial consequences of abuse are not fully recognised in the settlement process.
Abuse continuing through litigation
Resolution’s 2024 report highlights that abuse often persists beyond the end of a relationship, continuing within the family court process itself. Many practitioners described patterns of “litigation abuse,” where perpetrators exploit the proceedings as another means of exerting control.
Common examples included withholding or delaying financial disclosure, non-compliance with court orders, unnecessary applications and hearings, and restricting access to funds so the other party cannot properly instruct lawyers.
These behaviours mirror the dynamics of coercive control and can leave victims feeling trapped in the very system designed to protect them. The report warns that without stronger safeguards, litigation itself risks becoming an extension of the abuse, compounding the emotional and financial harm survivors already face.
Looking ahead
The latest figures on coercive control charges reveal wide regional disparities in how the criminal law is enforced.
Whether charging rates are rising or falling is significant, as prosecutions can offer vital protection and accountability. Yet for many survivors, the outcomes decided in the family courts, around children, finances, and safety, are just as critical.
Allegations of coercive control can influence divorce applications, shape decisions around child arrangements, and are frequently raised in financial cases, even if the law rarely allows them to alter settlements.
As Resolution’s 2024 report makes clear, patterns of abuse often persist beyond separation, sometimes re-emerging through the litigation process itself. This means that while criminal enforcement is inconsistent, family proceedings carry their own risks and challenges for survivors.
At Woolley & Co, we understand that addressing coercive control is about ensuring safety, stability, and fairness for families navigating divorce, children disputes, and financial negotiations.
Until the gaps between criminal enforcement and family law outcomes are addressed, survivors will continue to face uneven protection, making experienced family law advice essential.
Need help with coercive or controlling behaviour issues?
If you’re experiencing controlling or coercive behaviour, or supporting someone who is, we realise that asking for help can be incredibly difficult. Woolley & Co can talk you through your options and next steps in confidence.
We advise on protective orders, safety planning and the legal process, and can connect you with specialist support.
Call us on 0800 321 3832 or complete our quick online enquiry form to request a free call back.
Methodology
Data sources:
- Police recorded crime open data Police Force Area tables, year ending March 2013 onwards
- Outcomes open data, year ending March (tables 2020-2025)
We used Office for National Statistics (ONS) Police Recorded Crime and Outcomes open data tables for 2020–2025. For each police force area and financial quarter, we collated the number of CCB offences recorded and the number resulting in a charge or summons.
We then calculated the percentage of offences charged/summonsed for each financial year and measured the year‑on‑year change. From this, we identified the ten largest increases and the ten largest decreases.
We initially aimed to analyse data from 2015 to 2025 to gain a full picture of how CCB charges have evolved over the decade since the law was introduced. However, ‘controlling and coercive behaviour’ only appears as a specific offence category in the recorded crimes dataset from 2020/21 onwards, and in the crime outcomes dataset from 2019/20 onwards.
Please note that the British Transport Police was excluded from the study due to incomplete data. All interpretations are those of Woolley & Co researchers.
