The New Criminalisation of Coercive Control: Overview, Merits and Risks

11 August 2026 Victorian Law Reforms

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A. Overview of New Coercive Control Laws

I. Background and Structure

As a recognised national crisis in Australia, the issue of family violence has given rise to widespread critique amongst victim-survivors, communities and experts, who having highlighted the deficiency of legal action in response to the problem.¹ More specifically, the lack of enforceable accountability surrounding coercive control has fueled contention and criticism.² Indeed, commissions of inquiry have elucidated the mechanisms through which current police and court responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) fail to meet the needs of victim-survivors.³ In turn, a critical focus and apparent lacune have manifested, highlighting a need for Australian states and territories to implement a standalone offence of coercive control.⁴

In September 2023, the Australian Government and state and territory governments published the National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence (National Principles), outlining a shared implicit understanding of coercive control and its scarring psychological impacts, and introducing guiding considerations to inform effective responses.⁵ Taken together, a national debate on the need for states and territories to introduce a criminal offence of coercive control has been ignited.⁶ Furthermore, international pressures have emerged, following the implementation of specific criminal offences for coercion in other global jurisdictions such as England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.⁷

In response to this burgeoning tension, coercive control was officially made a standalone criminal offence on 11 August 2026.⁸ This legal reform has given rise to myriad contention and disagreement across the community, regarding whether criminalisation is an effective response to improve victim-survivors’ safety and secure more effective systemic response to family violence.⁹

In a swiftly evolving legal landscape where multiple Australian states and territories are committing to future reform,¹⁰ it is crucial to examine the simultaneous benefits, risks and impacts at the crux of this newly implemented criminalisation of coercive control. This research article will segue from a legislative overview of the reforms, to situating the new coercive control laws in the broader context of wider reforms in the new legislation. Subsequently, the varied responses from and views of the community and victim-survivors, in the face of this legislative reform, will be underscored and investigated.

II. Summary of Reform

On 11 August 2026, Labor introduced victim survivors with landmark new laws as part of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026.¹¹ Coercive control has now been made a standalone criminal offence.¹² The Attorney-General is also establishing an expert advisory group to drive the implementation of coercive control, and to provide advice on facilitating navigation of the justice system.¹³

The Bill makes several amendments to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme Act 2016, the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, and the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010, in relation to family violence intervention orders and criminal proceedings.¹⁴ Regarding the new laws pertaining to coercive control laws, the Bill amends the Crimes Act 1958, introducing a new offence relating to coercive control in intimate partner relationships.¹⁵

III. Definition of Coercive Control

Coercive control is defined as a behavioural pattern used to establish and maintain control over another person.¹⁶ Often an underlying dynamic and serious risk factor for intimate partner violence, perpetrators employ these behaviours to isolate, manipulate, threaten and scare the other person to control them.¹⁷ Coercive control can encompass any behaviour that harms, isolates, humiliates, harasses or monitors another person, deprives a person’s freedom or unreasonably controls the person’s daily activities.¹⁸ Though it can canvas physical violence and sexual abuse, it does not have to. It is the repetition and continuous nature of some coercive or controlling behaviours, rather than an isolated, minor incident, that can cause serious harm.¹⁹

Coercive and controlling actions are recognized as family violence under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, offering victim-survivors civil protections through family violence intervention orders, with the breach of a family violence intervention order constituting a criminal offence.²⁰

IV. Specific Legislative Amendments to the Crimes Act 1958: Section 34AR(1) – Definition of Coercive Control

A new section 34AR contains the new offence of coercive control. Section 34AR(1) sets out the elements of the offence, providing that a person A commits an offence if:
(a) A is an adult; and
(b) A has been an intimate partner of another person B; and
(c) A engages in a course of conduct towards B as set out in subsection (3); and
(d) A intends, by engaging in the course of conduct, to coerce or control B; and
(e) A ought to understand, in the context and circumstances, that the course of conduct will probably cause harm to B.²¹

In limiting the application of the offence to adults, new section 34AR(1)(a) is cognisant of the complexities of children who commit family violence.²² It recognises that such children are often victims themselves, and are susceptible to adopting the use of violence as a learned behaviour.²³ Restricting the offence’s application to adults protects children from being criminalized given their age, maturity level, and possibility of being a victim of misidentification.²⁴

Section 34AR(1)(b) provides that the accused person must be a current or former intimate partner of the complainant, with intimate partner being defined in new section 34AQ.²⁵ The new law recognizes that it is in intimate relationships that coercive control is currently most widespread and best understood.²⁶ Accordingly, the offence will not apply to alternative forms of serious family violence, including elder abuse.²⁷ However, the statutory review of the offence pursuant to new section 34AU will review its operation, including whether the offence should apply to relationships other than intimate partner relationships.²⁸

V. Section 34AR(1)(d) and (e) – Intention and Objective Fault Element

New section 34AR(1)(d) and (e) outline the fault elements required to establish the new offence of coercive control, namely an intention fault element and an objective fault element.²⁹ This combination of subjective and objective fault elements echoes common features of coercive control offences in other Australian jurisdictions that criminalise this conduct.³⁰ The objective fault element focusses on what the accused (A) should understand, in ‘all the particular circumstances in which the course of conduct occurred, in relation to the harm the accused’s actions will ‘probably’ have on the complainant (B).³¹ However, this objective fault element does not require the prosecution to prove actual harm to B.³² This acknowledges that people experiencing coercive control can react in different ways, and may develop resilience or methods to deal with the conduct, so it does not externally impact or disrupt their day-to-day activity.³³ It also recognises the commonality of those outside of the intimate partnership being unaware of the extent of the behaviour and its impact.³⁴

Within the requirement 34AR(1)(e) that A ought to understand, in the context and circumstances, that the course of conduct will probably cause harm to B, the use of ‘will probably’ is consistent with recent reform to Victoria’s stalking offence in section 21A of the Crimes Act 1958, which was informed by recommendation 33 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s ‘Stalking: Final Report’.³⁵ The use of the phrase ‘will probably’ is also consistent with the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s ‘Recklessness: Report’, which ascertained that the existing common law definition of recklessness, directly linked to probability, should be retained for Victorian offences against the person.³⁶

VI. Section 34AR(3) – Course of Conduct

New section 34AR(2) prescribes that a person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).³⁷ Furthermore, according to new section 34AR(3), for the purposes of subsection (1)(c), A engages in a course of conduct towards B if either A engages in conduct on more than one occasion; or A engages in conduct that is protracted; and A’s conduct is specified in subsection (4); and A’s conduct shows a continuity of purpose towards B.³⁸

What constitutes a course of conduct will depend on the facts of each case.³⁹ The elements required to exhibit that A engages in a course of conduct are based on recent amendments to section 21A(1B) of the Crimes Act 1958.⁴⁰ The amended stalking offence implemented common law principles established in the key cases of Gunes v Pearson and Berlyn v Brousko.⁴¹ The approach seeks to ensure that the established common law principles regarding course of conduct from the offence of stalking informs the course of conduct facet of the new offence of coercive control.⁴²

VII. Section 34AR(3)(c) – Continuity of Purpose

As stipulated in new subsection (3)(b), the course of conduct must consist of conduct defined in subsection (4), and must show a ‘continuity of purpose’ towards B, which is something additional about the pattern of conduct or the surrounding circumstances that must be shown before such a course of conduct can be established.⁴³ This continuity must be in relation to B.⁴⁴ The inclusion of this element is intended to help to ensure that a course of conduct does not include disconnected or innocuous acts.⁴⁵

VIII. Definition of Intimate Partner

For the purposes of new Subdivision (4B), intimate partner has the meaning given by new section 34AQ.⁴⁶ A person is considered an intimate partner of another person if the person is (a) married to the other person; or (b) is a domestic partner of the other person; or (c) has an intimate personal relationship with the other person, whether or not it is sexual in nature.⁴⁷

IX. New Section 34AT – Defence – Conduct that is Reasonable in the Context of the Relationship

For a charge for an offence against section 34AR(1), pursuant to new section 34AT, it is a defence to a charge if the course of conduct constituting the offence was reasonable in the context of the relationship between A and B when considered as a whole.⁴⁸ A common element of coercive control offences in other Australian jurisdictions, the defence of reasonableness may apply where person A acts in a manner that is coercive or controlling, but when viewed in the context of a relationship as a whole could be considered reasonable.⁴⁹

Intended to apply to a broad spectrum of situations, this defence may apply in cases where the victim of family violence is misidentified as the predominant aggressor, including in conditions of systems abuse.⁵⁰ Systems abuse occurs where a perpetrator of family violence utilises systems to harass or exert control over a victim-survivor, or succeeds in misrepresenting themselves as the victim.⁵¹ Depending on the specific circumstances and context, a course of conduct constituting the offence may also be reasonable if, for example, the accused is acting to protect household finances from an intimate partner with a gambling or drug addiction, or the accused is limiting an intimate partner’s movements for the sake of safety because they are suffering from advanced dementia.⁵²

The defence in question places the evidential burden on the accused, meaning it is incumbent to the accused to adduce evidence in support of the existence of the defence.⁵³ However, once this is achieved, the legal burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must prove that the accused did not act in a way that was reasonable in the context of the holistic relationship.⁵⁴

B. Justification for the Recent Reforms

In a Media Release by the Victorian Premier, the landmark law reform introductions are justified as enhancing the justice system for victim-survivors, and creating a system that believes them, protects them and holds perpetrators to account.⁵⁵ Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny iterates the importance of ensuring victim-survivors do not have to ‘fight their way through the justice system’, and states these reforms will drive the prioritization of their safety and voice.⁵⁶

Historically, because the criminal law has historically responded to family violence from a physical violence perspective, there is currently no criminal justice response available for coercive control where no family violence intervention order is in place, or the behaviour in question does not meet the required threshold to commence a criminal prosecution for specific acts that constitute an offence.⁵⁷ A coercive control offence may narrow this gap, particularly where an intimate partner’s conduct involves non-physical violence such as psychological, emotional or economic abuse, which are more difficult to prosecute under pre-existing criminal offence.⁵⁸

C. Other Key Reforms in the New Legislation

These protections form part of a wider Bill introduced to Parliament today to keep victim-survivors safer. Besides the coercive control laws, other protections implemented include:

• Abolishing ‘good character’ references, so perpetrators cannot use their reputation for less jail time. (Evidence of ‘good character’ is no longer considered a mitigating factor in sentencing)
• Strengthening Family Violence Intervention Orders to decrease need to return to court and reduce the risk re-traumatisation
• Requiring courts to account for victim-survivors’ views before extending an intervention order
• Extending the scope of Personal Safety Intervention Orders to recognize grooming
• Preventing perpetrators weaponising fines by expanding relief and exemptions for victim survivors.⁵⁹

Labor will also amend the Open Courts Act to limit the use of suppression orders, meaning convicted rapists can’t be concealed behind a mechanism intended to protect victim-survivors.⁶⁰ Labor is also set to review the use of interim suppression orders, and examine the grounds on which proceeding suppression orders can be made in criminal trials.⁶¹ The Equal Opportunity Act has been amended, now stipulating that ‘subjection to family violence’ is a protected attribute.⁶² This will make it unlawful to discriminate against someone because they are experiencing or have experienced family violence.⁶³

D. Community Response and Criticism

I. The Victorian Council of Social Service

The Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) is the peak body for Victoria’s social and community sector, and the state’s premier social advocacy body.⁶⁴ The VCOSS welcomes many of the measures in question introduced to Parliament, intended to bolster Victorian systems’ identification of and response to family violence.⁶⁵ The VCOSS expressed their approval of these measures, including the expansion of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to protect victim survivors of family violence from discrimination, and the extension of fines relief and exemptions for victim-survivors.⁶⁶ VCOSS recognizes the serious and long-lasting harm that coercive control causes across our communities, and supports the intention behind the Bill’s provisions to address it.⁶⁷

Nonetheless, the standalone criminalisation for coercive control holds substantial risk, notably the misidentification of victim-survivors as primary aggressors, the weaponisation of legal systems by perpetrators, and the disproportionate criminalisation of marginalised or First Nations communities due to broad statutory definitions.⁶⁸ Though they note that the substantial package of reforms include some that VCOSS and their member organisations have advocated for over many years, VCOSS highlight the significant concerns voiced by specialist family violence and community legal services on the proposed standalone offence of coercive control.⁶⁹

These organisations have warned that a standalone offence of coercive control carries risks such as perpetrator misidentification, systems abuse, and drawing victim-survivors further into the criminal legal system.⁷⁰ The VCOSS CEO Juanita Pope says that when services with world-leading expertise tell us that part of a new legislative package could ‘risk harming the very people it is meant to protect’, government should listen.⁷¹ VCOSS acknowledges that views across the sector and among victim-survivors are not unanimous on this important and sensitive issue.⁷² The broad consensus remains that victim-survivors’ safety must be prioritised. Were a criminal offence for coercive control to proceed, it would be remiss for it to stand alone. Rather, it must sit within a broader reform agenda that includes prevention, early intervention, culturally safe and accessible support services, improved responses to misidentification, and safeguards against unintended harms.⁷³ Community response advocates, instead, for an approach that addresses the underlying drivers of harm, and that refrain from relying solely on punitive and carceral responses.⁷⁴

II. Federation of Community Legal Centres

The CEO of Federation of Community Legal Centres, Louisa Gibbs, warns that the elevated criminal standard of proof, coupled with existing police practices, will inevitably unduly burden victim-survivors, while there remains an unacceptable risk that a standalone offence would exacerbate systems and misidentification, given the rife misidentification of victim-survivors as the predominant aggressors in incidents of family violence.⁷⁵ She notes that there are already protections against coercive control in Victoria’s existing legal framework through the FVIO system.⁷⁶

E. The Tension Between the Benefits and the Perils of the Criminalisation of Coercive Control: The Voice of Victim-Survivors

I. Overview of Victim-Survivors’ Views

In a national study of victim-survivors’ views on the need for, benefits, risks and impacts of coercive control’s criminalization, a spectrum of views emerged.⁷⁷ Whilst some victim-survivor justifications advocated for a standalone coercive control offence to buttress perpetrator accountability, some victim-survivors have recognized the limitations of this criminalisation.⁷⁸ Through this tension, the nuances and complexities of coercive control’s criminalisation becomes evident, with this paper propounding that whilst the criminalisation of coercive control does enhance community awareness, victim survivor safety, police response, perpetrator accountability, and access to justice for victim-survivors, valid concerns and risks surrounding the new criminal offence exist.

II. The Necessity for and Potential Benefits of Coercive Control’s Criminalisation

Firstly, there is an expectation amongst victim-survivors of family violence that the process of criminalisation will prevent future deaths from intimate partner violence.⁷⁹ It is well established, both in Australia and internationally, that coercive control is a common risk factor in intimate partner homicide. The elevated prevalence of coercive control preceding the deaths of women killed by current and former intimate partners accentuates the need for early identification and effective interventions, to better secure the safety and lives of those experiencing coercive control.⁸⁰ Evidently, however, identifying causative factors in the prevalence of intimate partner femicides is extremely difficult, with less established evidence on whether prevention of intimate partner femicide can be achieved via criminalisation.⁸¹

Moreover, criminalisation has been identified as a strategy to improve police response, particularly their ability to better identify and respond to coercive control.⁸² Police inaction is prevalent, with victim-survivors perceiving a lack of willingness of police to take non-physical forms of IPV seriously.⁸³ Such inaction reflects a widespread lack of understanding of the significant safety risks for individuals in coercive and controlling relationships when psychological, rather than physical violence, is central. The expansion of legislation, and extension of the parameters of family violence which police can actively respond to, have been viewed as significant in ascribing the legislative permissions to respond to the full range of harm experienced by victim-survivors.⁸⁴

Of those victim-survivors who supported or were unsure about the criminalisation of coercive control, 78 percent identified improved perpetrator accountability as a benefit of criminalisation.⁸⁵ Indeed, criminalisation can be used as a tool to deter perpetrators and a tool to hold perpetrators to account.⁸⁶ By expanding the remit of the criminal law, victim-survivors are hopeful that perpetrators will become more cognisant of the range of abusive behaviours within the realm of the law, and will be deterred from committing such behaviours.⁸⁷ Given the new visibility and consistency of punitive consequences, the new criminalisation captures a fundamental shift in responsibility, from an ostensible onus on the victim to ensure their own safety, to a recalibration that frees the victim-survivor of their responsibility for their safety and security beyond the abusive relation.⁸⁸

III. Risks of the Reform

Conversely, interviews with victim-survivors have highlighted significant risks of this criminal reform. Many have raised concerns that the criminalisation of coercive control would be limited in its ability to address broader problems in the treatment of victim-survivors of family violence within the court system.⁸⁹ This is unsurprising given the preceding research in Australia, and countries with comparable adversarial justice systems, which have documented the ways in which women victim-survivors feel discredited, blamed, silenced, dismissed and undermined through engagement with civil, criminal and family court.⁹⁰

There is a significant risk of victim-survivors becoming retraumatised, through the disempowering process of accessing and engaging with the heavily bureaucratic complexities of the justice system.⁹¹ Closely coupled with victim-survivors’ descriptions of the vicarious trauma of engaging with the court process is the challenge of ‘proving’ coercive control beyond reasonable doubt and to the requisite legal threshold.⁹² Building on this, victim-survivors have recognised the tendency for allegations involving heavy scrutiny of the credibility for the victim-survivor and their accounts.⁹³ Due to the insidious, subtle nature of coercive control, it is often difficult to prove victimisation to the criminal standard required, and the process of gathering substantive evidence can often be dangerous and traumatic.⁹⁴ Overall, it is evident that significant consideration must be paid to how these newly criminalised behaviours must be proven in the context of traditional laws of evidence, which have historically lent themselves to acts of physical evidence.

IV. Impacts of Punishment on Over-Criminalised Communities

A number of victim-survivors interviewed acknowledged and expressed their reservations that the criminalisation for coercive control would likely disproportionately affect First Nations communities, as well as other diverse Australian populations which have historically experienced disproportionate attention from, and fraught relations with, the police and justice.⁹⁵ Marginalised groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, face elevated rates of custodial penalties for domestic and family violence-related charges, with entrenched institutional racism within police forces compromising objective investigations and community-led, culturally-safe support.⁹⁶

The risk of over-policing and incarceration of First Nations peoples is rooted in deep-seated systemic bias, which often leads police to misidentify traumatised victim-survivors as primary aggressors.⁹⁷ The resulting danger is a deepening of Indigenous communities’ distrust in and alienation from state authorities, and an increased deterrence of reporting incidents of family violence, rooted in a severe, ongoing fear of child removal.⁹⁸

Ultimately, the dichotomy of the debate was not echoed in the nuanced views propounded by the victim-survivors in the national study; most victim-survivors interviewed have expressed simultaneously support for the criminalisation, and concern and caution as to the risks of implementation.⁹⁹ Accordingly, the merits of the new criminal offence must be articulated and recognised in conjunction with its accompanying risks.

In essence, there has been widespread acknowledgement of the need for the law to evolve to better respond to the totality of abusive behaviours experienced in abusive intimate partner relationships, and to mature models of managing domestic violence.¹⁰⁰ As a glimmer of hope and step forward towards recognising non-physical forms of intimate partner violence, the reform can be characterised as an opportunity to raise community awareness of the unacceptability of coercive control, and to improve availability of help-seeking avenues and accessibility to justice for victim-survivors.¹⁰¹

Yet, focusing on a single, isolated piece of legislation will not deliver the transformation needed to tackle Australia’s national crisis of family violence and coercive psychological control.¹⁰² System accountability and support are needed for enhanced community awareness to improve community understanding, the development of perpetrator intervention to strengthen accountability and deterrence from future offending, training for police, magistrates and other professionals working in the criminal legal system.¹⁰³ Moreover, the court system’s ability to safely accommodate the experiences of victim-survivors must be scrutinised, to reduce victim-blaming and re-traumatisation in court response. Ultimately, substantive investment in resources and community and professional education must be made to support the safe implementation of the new offence. It is only through this survivor-centric, future-focused strategy will substantive and progressive reform, response and recovery be achieved.

Bibliography:

A Articles/Reports

ACON, Annual Report 2020/21 (Report, 2021).

Attorney-General’s Department 2023, ‘National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence’, Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department.

Eriksson L, Mazerolle P & McPhedran S 2022. Giving voice to the silenced victims: A qualitative study of intimate partner femicide. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 645. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Fitz-Gibbon et al, The criminalisation of coercive control: A national study of victim-survivors’ views on the need for, benefits, risks and impacts of criminalisation’ (Report to the Criminology Research Advisory Council CRG 24/20-21, December 2024).

Fitz-Gibbon K, Reeves E, Meyer S & Walklate S 2023, Victimsurvivors’ views on and expectations for the criminalisation of coercive control in Australia: Findings from a national survey, Monash University.

Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, ‘Risks remain for victim-survivors despite positives in Justice Legislation Amendment Bill’ (Media Release, Ben Jessup, 13 August 2026).

inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence, Annual Report 2020-2021 (2021).

Meyer S 2011, Seeking help for intimate partner violence: Victims’ experiences when approaching the criminal justice system for IPV-related support and protection in an Australian jurisdiction, Feminist Criminology 6(4).

Sisters Inside & Institute for Collaborative Race Research 2021. The state as abuser: Coercive control in the colony, Joint submission from Sisters Inside and the Institute for Collaborative Race Research on Discussion Paper 1 of the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, 16 July 2021.

Victorian Law Reform Commission, Recklessness (Report No 36, May 2024).

Victorian Council of Social Service, ‘VCOSS responds to Victoria’s recent family violence reforms’ (Media Release VCOSS, 14 August 2026).

Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Final Report (Report No 45, 21 September 2022).

Victorian State Government, ‘Labor Protects Victim-Survivors with Landmark New Laws’ (Media Release, The Hon Ben Carroll MP, 11 August 2026).

Yoorrook Justice Commission, Yoorrook for Justice: Report into Victoria’s Child Protection and Criminal Justice Systems (2023).

B Books and Book Chapters

Douglas H 2021b, Women, intimate partner violence, and the law. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hunter R 2008, Domestic violence law reform and women’s experiences in court: The implementation of feminist reforms in civil proceedings, Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.

Tyson D 2020. Coercive control and intimate partner homicide. In M McMahon & P McGorrery (eds), Criminalising coercive control: Family violence and the criminal law, Springer.

C Cases

Berlyn v Brouskos (2002) 134 A Crim R 111.

Gunes v Pearson (1995) 124 FLR 156.

R v Anders [2009] VSCA 7, (2009) 20 VR 596.

D Legislation

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 21A.

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022 No 65.

Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024.

Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018.

Explanatory Memorandum, Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026 (Vic).

Family Violence Protection Act (Vic) 2008.

Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026 (Vic).

Serious Crime Act (UK) 2015.

Footnotes

1. Kate Fitz-Gibbon et al, The criminalisation of coercive control: A national study of victim-survivors’ views on the need for, benefits, risks and impacts of criminalisation’ (Report to the Criminology Research Advisory Council CRG 24/20-21, December 2024), 13 [1]. ↩
2. Ibid 13 [2]. ↩
3. Ibid 8 [3]. ↩
4. Ibid 7 [1]. ↩
5. Attorney-General’s Department 2023,. ‘National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence’, Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department. ↩
6. Ibid (n 1) 8 [3]. ↩
7. Serious Crime Act UK 2015 s 76; Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 ↩
8. Victorian State Government, ‘Labor Protects Victim-Survivors with Landmark New Laws’ (Media Release, The Hon Ben Carroll MP, 11 August 2026) 1 [2]. ↩
9. Ibid n(1). See also Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, ‘Risks remain for victim-survivors despite positives in Justice Legislation Amendment Bill’ (Media Release, Ben Jessup, 13 August 2026); Victorian Council of Social Service, ‘VCOSS responds to Victoria’s recent family violence reforms’ (Media Release VCOSS, 14 August 2026). ↩
10. Ibid (n 1) 7 [3]. ↩
11. Ibid (n 8). ↩
12. Ibid 1 [8]. ↩
13. Ibid 1 [12]. ↩
14. Explanatory Memorandum, Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Coercive Control, Good Character, Risk Assessment and Other Matters) Bill 2026 (Vic), 1 [1]. ↩
15. Ibid 1 [10]. ↩
16. Ibid (n 14) 33 [4]. ↩
17. Ibid. ↩
18. Ibid. ↩
19. Ibid. ↩
20. Family Violence Protection Act (Vic) 2008 ↩
21. Ibid (n 14) 40 [5]. ↩
22. Ibid 40 [7]. ↩
23. Ibid. ↩
24. Ibid. ↩
25. Ibid 41 [1]. ↩
26. Ibid 41 [2]. ↩
27. Ibid. ↩
28. Ibid. ↩
29. Ibid (n 14) 41 [1]. ↩
30. See, for example, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022 No 65 and Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act. 2024 ↩
31. Ibid (n 14) 41 [6]. ↩
32. Ibid. ↩
33. Ibid. ↩
34. Ibid. ↩
35. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 21A; Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Final Report (Report No 45, 21 September 2022) ↩
36. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Recklessness (Report No 36, May 2024) [3.16, 3.18] ↩
37. Ibid (n 14). ↩
38. Ibid 42 [4]. ↩
39. Ibid 42 [5]. ↩
40. Crimes Act 1958 s 32A (1B) ↩
41. Gunes v Pearson (1995) 89 A Crim R 297 and Berlyn v Brousko [2002] VSC 377 ↩
42. Ibid (n 14) 46 [2]. ↩
43. Berlyn v Brouskos [2002] VSC 377 [25]. ↩
44. R v Anders [2009] VSCA 7 [21]. ↩
45. Ibid (n 14) 43 [1]. ↩
46. Ibid 38 (n 10) ↩
47. Ibid 38 (n 11) ↩
48. Ibid 47 [5]. ↩
49. See, for example, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 54E ↩
50. Ibid (n 14) 47 [6] ↩
51. Ibid. ↩
52. Ibid 48 [3]. ↩
53. Ibid 48 [4]. ↩
54. Ibid. ↩
55. Ibid (n 13) 1 [1]. ↩
56. Ibid 2 [3]. ↩
57. Ibid (n 18). ↩
58. Ibid 34 [1]. ↩
59. Ibid 2 [8]. ↩
60. Ibid (n 8) ↩
61. Ibid 1 [10] ↩
62. Ibid 1 [6]. ↩
63. Ibid. ↩
64. Victorian Council of Social Service, ‘VCOSS responds to Victoria’s recent family violence reforms’ (Media Release VCOSS, 14 August 2026) 1 [4]. ↩
65. Ibid 1 [5]. ↩
66. Ibid 1 [2]. ↩
67. Ibid 1 [3]. ↩
68. Ibid 10 [4]-[5]. ↩
69. Ibid 1 [5]. ↩
70. Ibid 1 [6]. ↩
71. Ibid 1 [7]. ↩
72. Ibid 1 [8]. ↩
73. Ibid 1 [9]. ↩
74. Ibid 1 [10]. ↩
75. Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, ‘Risks remain for victim-survivors despite positives in Justice Legislation Amendment Bill’ (Media Release, Ben Jessup, 13 August 2026) 1 [9]. ↩
76. Family Violence Protection Act (Vic) 2008 ↩
77. Ibid (n 1) 21 [1]. ↩
78. Ibid (n 1) 33 [1]. ↩
79. Ibid (n 1) 43 [4]. ↩
80. Eriksson L, Mazerolle P & McPhedran S 2022. Giving voice to the silenced victims: A qualitative study of intimate partner femicide. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 645. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
    See also Tyson D 2020. Coercive control and intimate partner homicide. In M McMahon & P McGorrery (eds), Criminalising coercive control: Family violence and the criminal law, Springer. ↩
81. Ibid (n 1) 31 [4]. ↩
82. Ibid (n 1) 47 [5]. ↩
83. Ibid (n 1) 48 [1]. ↩
84. Ibid (n 1) 49 [2]. ↩
85. Fitz-Gibbon K, Reeves E, Meyer S & Walklate S 2023, Victimsurvivors’ views on and expectations for the criminalisation of coercive control in Australia: Findings from a national survey, Monash University [9]. ↩
86. Ibid (n 1) 10 [3]. ↩
87. Ibid (n 1) 19 [1]. ↩
88. Ibid (n 1) 57 [7]. ↩
89. Ibid (n 1) 56 [3]. ↩
90. See, among others, Douglas H 2021b, Women, intimate partner violence, and the law. New York: Oxford University Press;
    Hunter R 2008, Domestic violence law reform and women’s experiences in court: The implementation of feminist reforms in civil proceedings, Amherst, NY: Cambria Press;
    Meyer S 2011, Seeking help for intimate partner violence: Victims’ experiences when approaching the criminal justice system for IPV-related support and protection in an Australian jurisdiction, Feminist Criminology 6(4): 268–290. ↩
91. Ibid (n 1) 68 [5]. ↩
92. Ibid 70 [1]. ↩
93. Ibid 71 [1]. ↩
94. Ibid 73 [1]. ↩
95. Ibid 58 [1]. See also among others, ACON, Annual Report 2020/21 (Report, 2021);
    inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence, Annual Report 2020–2021 (2021);
    Sisters Inside and Institute for Collaborative Race Research, The State as Abuser: Coercive Control in the Colony (Joint Submission, 16 July 2021). ↩
96. Yoorrook Justice Commission, Yoorrook for Justice: Report into Victoria’s Child Protection and Criminal Justice Systems (2023) 237. ↩
97. Sisters Inside and Institute for Collaborative Race Research, The State as Abuser: Coercive Control in the Colony (Joint Submission, 16 July 2021). ↩
98. Ibid. ↩
99. Ibid (n 1) 74 [1]. ↩
100. Ibid 81 [3]. ↩
101. Ibid 81 [4]. ↩
102. Ibid 78 [5]. ↩
103. Ibid 51 [3]-[5]. ↩