Coercive control charges in Queensland

The four elements the prosecution must prove

Section 334C is not a general offence of being controlling. It has four elements, and each has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

1. An adult in a domestic relationship. Only a person aged 18 or over can commit the offence. The relationship must be an intimate personal relationship, a family relationship or an informal care relationship. Former partners are covered.
2. A course of conduct consisting of domestic violence on more than one occasion. One incident is not enough, no matter how serious. Section 334B defines the domestic violence that can make up the course of conduct: physically or sexually abusive behaviour, emotionally or psychologically abusive behaviour, economically abusive behaviour, threatening or coercive behaviour, and behaviour that controls or dominates and causes fear.
3. Intent to coerce or control. The prosecution must prove you intended the course of conduct to coerce or control the other person. It does not have to prove an intention behind each individual act, which is the element most often misunderstood by people reading the section for the first time.
4. Reasonably likely to cause harm. An objective test. Harm is defined broadly in section 334A and includes detrimental effects on physical, emotional, financial, psychological or mental wellbeing. The court considers the behaviour of both people in the context of the relationship as a whole.

What the section counts as domestic violence

Section 334A defines several categories that regularly form part of an alleged course of conduct. They are worth reading carefully because most of them involve no physical contact at all.

• Economic abuse. Behaviour that unreasonably denies a person financial autonomy, or withholds financial support they reasonably need. Controlling all accounts, preventing someone working, or running up debt in their name.
• Emotional or psychological abuse. Behaviour that torments, intimidates, harasses or is offensive to the person. Constant belittling, threats to harm pets, threats about immigration status, threats of self harm used to control.
• Unauthorised or unreasonable surveillance. Monitoring movements, activities or associations. Tracking apps, checking phones, demanding location sharing, using shared accounts to monitor.
• Isolation. Cutting a person off from family, friends or support, whether by direct prohibition or by making contact intolerable.

Section 334D removes several arguments before they start. It does not matter that the domestic violence was directed at someone else, such as a child or a pet, or at property. It does not matter that the person was unaware of the surveillance or the economic abuse at the time.

Where these prosecutions are won and lost

Two features of section 334C shape every defence of one of these charges.

Conduct before 26 May 2025 cannot form the course of conduct

The transitional provision in section 762 limits section 334C to acts of domestic violence done after commencement. Relationship history from before that date may still be admissible as evidence under the ordinary rules, and it will be, but the acts that make up the charged course of conduct must be after 26 May 2025. In a long relationship the first task is often mapping the alleged conduct against that date.

The jury does not have to agree on the same acts

Section 334C makes clear that all members of a jury are not required to be satisfied about the same particular acts, provided each is satisfied there was a course of conduct. That is a significant departure from the usual position and it means the defence cannot simply pick off individual allegations. The pattern has to be answered as a pattern.

The statutory defence

It is a defence to prove the course of conduct was reasonable in the context of the relationship as a whole. The onus is on the defendant, on the balance of probabilities. Importantly, you cannot run the defence by arguing individual acts were reasonable. It is the whole course of conduct or nothing, which makes the evidence of how the relationship actually functioned central: financial arrangements both people agreed to, caring responsibilities, health conditions, cultural context.

The other realistic arguments are the ordinary ones. Intent is a real issue where the conduct is capable of an innocent explanation. Whether conduct on two occasions amounts to a course of conduct rather than two separate incidents is genuinely arguable. And where both people in a relationship allege controlling behaviour, section 22A of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) and the person most in need of protection analysis matter.

If you are experiencing coercive control

The offence was created because pattern based abuse was falling between the cracks of incident based offences. If that is your experience, a few things are worth knowing.

• You do not need a criminal charge to get protection. A protection order under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) is decided on the balance of probabilities and can be applied for at any Magistrates Court registry at no cost. Coercive and controlling behaviour is already domestic violence under section 8 of that Act.
• Records matter more than memory here. Because the offence is about a pattern, contemporaneous records are unusually valuable: dated notes, messages, bank statements showing control of money, evidence of tracking apps, records of appointments missed or prevented.
• Financial evidence is often the strongest evidence. Economic abuse leaves a paper trail that emotional abuse does not.

DVConnect Womensline is 1800 811 811, Mensline is 1800 600 636, and 1800RESPECT is 1800 737 732. If you are in immediate danger, call 000.

How it sits with the other charges

A coercive control charge is usually not the only charge. Section 334C expressly allows it to be charged in the same indictment as related domestic violence offences arising from the same conduct.

The offences it commonly travels with are contravening a domestic violence order under section 177 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), unlawful stalking, intimidation, harassment or abuse under section 359E of the Criminal Code, and choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting under section 315A. At 14 years, section 334C is an indictable offence dealt with in the District Court.

Read our domestic violence offences page for the charges that sit alongside it, and the protection order section for the civil process that usually runs at the same time.