Beyond the Bruises: Why Criminalising Coercive Control is a Watershed Moment for Australian Psychology

Introduction

The recent decision in New South Wales to criminalise coercive control, as reported by ABC News, marks a pivotal moment in Australia's approach to domestic and family violence. For years, the legal system has primarily focused on discrete acts of physical violence—incidents that can be photographed, documented, and presented as evidence. This new legislation, however, represents a profound and necessary evolution, acknowledging a truth that psychologists and survivors have understood for decades: the most insidious forms of abuse are often invisible. From a psychological standpoint, this legal shift is not merely a new deterrent; it is a fundamental validation of the complex, hidden reality of psychological abuse and its devastating impact on a victim's autonomy, identity, and mental health. By legally recognising the pattern of controlling behaviours, the law is finally beginning to align with the psychological science of trauma, attachment, and abuse.

Summary of the Core Issue

The ABC News article outlines the historic passage of 'Preeti's Law' in NSW, making coercive control a standalone criminal offence punishable by up to seven years in prison. The law defines this form of abuse as a pattern of behaviour aimed at depriving a person of their freedom and autonomy. The report highlights key examples, such as isolating a partner from friends and family, controlling their finances, monitoring their movements, and issuing relentless threats. It notes the law's development was spurred by tireless advocacy from families of victims, like the parents of Preeti Reddy, who was murdered by her ex-partner. The article also touches on the implementation challenges, including the need for extensive police training to recognise the nuanced patterns of control, and concerns from some advocates about potential misapplication against already marginalised communities. In essence, the new law targets the underlying dynamic of domestic abuse, shifting the focus from isolated violent incidents to the ongoing, calculated campaign of psychological oppression.

Coercive control is not about a single argument. It's about a pattern of behaviour that can leave someone feeling like a prisoner in their own life.

A Deeper Psychological Perspective

To truly grasp the significance of criminalising coercive control, one must look beyond legal definitions and delve into the psychological mechanics of how this abuse functions. Coercive control is not a series of bad arguments or a "toxic" relationship dynamic; it is a deliberate, strategic campaign to colonise the victim's mind and dismantle their sense of self.

The Erosion of Identity: At its core, coercive control is a form of identity theft. Perpetrators often use a technique known as gaslighting, where they systematically manipulate information to make the victim doubt their own perceptions, memory, and sanity. A statement like, "You're not remembering it correctly, you're too emotional," is not just a dismissal; it's a tool to rewrite the victim's reality. Over time, the victim's internal compass breaks. They lose trust in their own judgment and become increasingly dependent on the abuser for their understanding of the world. This creates a state of profound psychological disorientation, making it incredibly difficult to recognise the abuse, let alone leave it.

Attachment Theory and Trauma Bonding: This dependency is often cemented through a powerful psychological phenomenon known as a trauma bond. Human beings are wired for attachment. In a healthy relationship, this bond provides safety and security. In an abusive one, the perpetrator manipulates this innate need. They often intersperse abuse with moments of kindness, affection, or remorse, creating a cycle of intermittent reinforcement. This is the same principle that makes gambling so addictive. The unpredictable nature of the "reward" (kindness) keeps the victim hooked, hoping for a return to the "good times." The victim becomes bonded not to the person, but to the cycle itself. They are not "addicted to the drama"; their attachment system has been hijacked by a perpetrator who alternates between the roles of tormentor and saviour.

Learned Helplessness and the Annihilation of Agency: The relentless and unpredictable nature of the control—monitoring finances one day, dictating clothing the next, isolating from family the week after—induces a state of learned helplessness. This concept, first identified by psychologist Martin Seligman, describes a state where a person, after enduring repeated adverse events beyond their control, ceases to try to escape, even when opportunities arise. The victim of coercive control learns that resistance is futile or, worse, leads to increased punishment. Their personal agency is systematically dismantled. Simple decisions, like what to cook for dinner or whether to meet a friend for coffee, become fraught with anxiety and require permission. This is not a passive victim; this is a person who has been psychologically disabled by a sustained campaign against their autonomy.

The Neurological Impact: The chronic stress of living under such conditions has tangible neurological consequences. The constant state of high alert—the "walking on eggshells"—floods the body with cortisol and adrenaline. This can lead to a hyperactive amygdala (the brain's fear centre) and a hypoactive prefrontal cortex (the area responsible for executive functions like planning and decision-making). In practical terms, this means the victim is living in a perpetual state of fight-or-flight, making it biologically difficult to think clearly, plan an escape, or even imagine a future free from the abuser. The law finally acknowledges that this psychological and neurological injury is as real and as damaging as a physical wound.

Examining the New Law: The Challenge of Legislating a Pattern

What makes this NSW law both groundbreaking and legally complex is its radical departure from the traditional, incident-based model of criminal justice. For centuries, criminal law has focused on discrete, provable acts: an assault, a theft, a threat. These are moments in time. The coercive control legislation, however, requires the prosecution to prove a "course of conduct"—a sustained pattern of abusive behaviours intended to control a partner. This isn't about one event; it’s about the suffocating atmosphere created over months or years. The law rightly recognises that the harm lies not in the individual threads of abuse, but in the oppressive tapestry they weave together.

The core legal hurdle, therefore, shifts from proving an action to proving a dynamic. The legislation specifies that the pattern can involve a combination of physical, sexual, psychological, or financial abuse, but critically, it must be behaviour that a reasonable person would consider likely to cause fear of violence or to seriously impair a person's capacity to act independently. This introduces a significant evidentiary challenge. A single controlling text message, viewed in isolation, might be dismissed as part of a normal domestic argument. But a hundred such texts, presented alongside bank statements showing restricted access to funds, a GPS log of the victim’s car, and testimony from a friend who was systematically cut out of the victim’s life—this is the mosaic of evidence required to build a compelling narrative of oppression.

Furthermore, the law rightly sets a high bar by focusing on the perpetrator’s intent and the context of their actions. The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused knew, or ought to have known, that their pattern of behaviour would be controlling. The legislation also includes provisions for the defence to argue that their conduct was "reasonable in the circumstances," for instance, in the management of household finances or the upbringing of children. This safeguard is necessary to prevent the law’s misuse, but it forces the justice system into the deeply uncomfortable and nuanced territory of judging the inner workings of a relationship. It demands that police, lawyers, and judges distinguish between a dysfunctional partnership and a calculated campaign of psychological colonisation—a distinction that is far more difficult to prove than the presence of a bruise.

Training Police: Shifting from Incidents to Investigative Insight

The ultimate success of this legislation rests almost entirely on the shoulders of frontline police and their ability to recognise a dynamic they have not been institutionally trained to see. The NSW Government’s commitment to mandatory training is a crucial first step, but the task requires more than a procedural update; it demands a profound cultural shift. Traditionally, police responding to a domestic disturbance are trained to de-escalate the immediate situation, separate the parties, and assess for immediate physical danger. Their focus is on the "incident." Coercive control, however, requires an entirely different, investigative mindset, one more akin to building a long-term fraud or stalking case than resolving a heated argument.

An effective trauma-informed approach will also involve a fundamental change in the questions asked at the scene. Instead of a narrow focus on "What just happened?", officers must be trained to gently probe for the underlying narrative. The crucial questions become: "Does your partner control who you are allowed to see or talk to?" "Do you have independent access to your own money?" "Does he check your phone or social media?" "Do you feel you have to ask for permission to do everyday things?" These questions are not just a checklist; they are gateways to understanding the victim's lived reality of entrapment. They acknowledge the psychological truth that a victim living in a state of hyper-vigilance may struggle to recall linear details of the latest incident, but can vividly describe the suffocating rules that govern their existence.

Ultimately, even the most insightful frontline officer cannot succeed in isolation. The implementation of this law presents a system-wide challenge. It necessitates a collaborative ecosystem where police work hand-in-glove with specialist domestic violence services, who often hold the historical context and trust of the victim. Moreover, prosecutors within the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) require their own specialised training to learn how to present these complex, narrative-based cases compellingly in a courtroom setting. Without this integrated approach—from the first response at the door to the final argument before a judge—the law risks becoming a symbolic but hollow victory: a powerful tool on the statute books that is rarely, if ever, used to bring perpetrators of this insidious abuse to justice.

The Melbourne/Australian Context

While NSW has led the way with this legislation, the conversation is critically relevant across Australia, particularly here in Victoria. For years, Victorian family violence services, like those in Fitzroy and Dandenong, have been operating at capacity, dealing with the fallout of abuse that the law did not fully recognise. The 2016 Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence was a landmark inquiry that explicitly identified coercive control as a central element of family violence. However, while Victoria has implemented many of the Commission's recommendations, the creation of a standalone offence has been a point of ongoing debate.

Advocates in Melbourne argue that without a specific law, police are often left trying to fit a pattern of behaviour into discrete charges like "stalking" or "making threats," which fails to capture the totality of the abuse. It's like trying to describe a complex tapestry by only being allowed to mention the individual threads. The success or failure of the NSW law will be watched closely from Spring Street. The key challenge for Victoria, should it follow suit, will be the same: ensuring that Victoria Police members, from transit officers at Flinders Street Station to detectives in regional centres, are trained to see beyond the incident to the underlying pattern of control. It requires a paradigm shift in policing—from incident-response to investigative pattern-recognition.

Practical Takeaways

Understanding coercive control is the first step towards identifying and addressing it, whether in your own life or in the life of someone you know.

1. Recognise the Pattern, Not Just the Incidents: Coercive control is a system. Look for patterns of isolation (cutting you off from friends/family), financial control (restricting access to money), monitoring (checking your phone/whereabouts), and degradation (constant criticism). It's the cumulative effect that constitutes abuse.

2. Document Everything (Safely): If you suspect you are in a controlling relationship, and it is safe to do so, keep a private journal of incidents. Note dates, times, and specific behaviours. This record is not for confrontation but for your own clarity and, if needed, for seeking help from services like 1800RESPECT.

3. Trust Your Gut Feeling: Victims often describe a feeling of "walking on eggshells." If you feel constantly anxious, afraid of your partner's reaction, or that you have lost your sense of self, trust that feeling. It is a valid indicator that something is profoundly wrong.

4. Reach Out to a Specialist Service: Do not rely on general advice. Contact a specialist family violence service. They are trained to understand the complexities of coercive control and can help you create a safety plan, offering support that is tailored to your unique situation, without judgment.

Conclusion

The criminalisation of coercive control in NSW is more than a legal update; it is a cultural and psychological milestone. It validates the lived experience of countless survivors whose deepest wounds were inflicted without a single punch being thrown. This law encourages our society, and its legal system, to look "beyond the bruises" and recognise the profound psychological violence inherent in dismantling a person's autonomy and identity. For psychology, it represents a moment where the law has finally caught up to the science—acknowledging that the patterns of power, manipulation, and control are not just precursors to physical violence, but a devastating form of abuse in their own right. The challenge for the rest of Australia is now to observe, learn, and act, ensuring that every citizen is protected not just from physical harm, but from the calculated destruction of their very self.