What counts as domestic violence for coercive control?

An update to this article

We wrote this in June 2024, before the coercive control offence commenced. It commenced on 26 May 2025 and now carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

The definitions discussed below are now being applied to real prosecutions, so the questions we raised about their breadth are no longer theoretical.

Where these definitions apply

Proving domestic violence on more than one occasion is a required element of the coercive control offence. This article deals with how domestic violence is defined for that purpose.

These are not general definitions that reshape every area involving domestic violence. Protection order applications, family law matters and other criminal offences have their own tests. The relevance of what follows is to whether the domestic violence element of a coercive control charge is made out.

Two points before the categories

First, domestic violence here does not necessarily mean a single event. The provisions make clear that it can occur over time, or across multiple events which, taken together, meet the description.

Second, the behaviours must be considered in the context of the relationship between the people involved. Exactly what that achieves is not immediately clear.

The most likely explanation is that context is meant to allow for the possibility that the same behaviour is acceptable in one relationship and not in another. The legislation appears to accept that something can be domestic violence in one relationship and arguably not in another. Whether context does enough work to contain the breadth of what follows remains to be seen.

The structure of the definition

The definition operates on two levels. There is a high level list of what domestic violence is, and then a list of specific behaviours that are automatically treated as domestic violence.

This article deals with the high level categories. There are six:

1. physically or sexually abusive behaviour;
2. emotionally or psychologically abusive behaviour;
3. economically abusive behaviour;
4. threatening behaviour;
5. coercive behaviour; and
6. behaviour that in any other way controls or dominates the person and causes them to fear for their safety or wellbeing, or that of someone else.

Physically or sexually abusive

This captures the traditional physical elements. The concept is well established and does not need extended treatment here.

Emotionally or psychologically abusive

This is harder territory, because it is difficult to define with precision.

The definition is behaviour by a person towards another person that torments, intimidates, harasses or degrades the other person.

That definition introduces four new concepts, none of which are themselves defined. Torment, intimidate, harass and degrade will therefore carry their ordinary meanings. Over time, courts will consider them against specific facts and a body of authority will develop about what falls inside.

What we do have is a set of statutory examples. The examples given in section 11 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) include:

• following a person, or remaining outside their residence or workplace;
• repeatedly contacting a person by phone, SMS, email or social media without consent;
• repeated derogatory taunts, including racial taunts;
• threatening to disclose a person’s sexual orientation without their consent;
• threatening to withhold medication; and
• preventing a person from making or keeping connections with family, friends or kin, including cultural or spiritual ceremonies.

The examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. Some are clear. Others are not. "Repeatedly contacting a person by SMS" will always depend on the content of the messages and whether the recipient wants to receive them. As written, that example is broader than the definition it is supposed to illustrate.

So it is important not to read the examples as though they were the definition. Each behaviour turns on its own facts.

Economically abusive

Economic abuse means behaviour by a person that is coercive, deceptive or unreasonably controls another person:

• in a way that denies that person the economic or financial autonomy they would have had but for the behaviour; or
• by withholding, or threatening to withhold, financial support necessary for meeting the reasonable living expenses of that person or a child.

The conduct this is aimed at is clear enough. Some domestic violence involves one party exercising total control over the other’s finances, leaving them dependent and unable to leave.

The definition itself is confusing in three ways.

1. The behaviour must be coercive, deceptive or unreasonably controlling. None of the statutory examples address how deception fits. They focus almost entirely on coercion and control.
2. Neither "coerce" nor "control" is defined for this purpose. Coerce is defined elsewhere, meaning to compel or force a person to do or refrain from doing something, but not here.
3. The qualifier "unreasonably" attaches only to control, not to coercion. So coercive behaviour is captured whether it is reasonable or not. Some would say all coercion is unreasonable. Clarity would still be welcome.

The examples in section 12 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) include coercing a person to relinquish control over assets or income, removing or keeping property without consent, disposing of jointly owned property without consent, preventing access to joint funds for normal household expenses, preventing a person from seeking or keeping employment, and coercing a person to sign a power of attorney, a loan, a guarantee or a business document.

Those examples largely restate the undefined terms rather than explain them. When is disposing of property unreasonable rather than reasonable? When does asking a partner to hand over control of income become coercion? The examples do not tell us.

Threatening

There is no explanation of what threatening behaviour is meant to include. The concept of a threat is, however, well explored in criminal law generally.

A threat is usually a statement of an intention to do harm. It can be spoken, written or implied, including by body language. For criminal purposes it generally needs to be of a nature and seriousness that an ordinary person might be influenced by or fearful of.

The question left open is: a threat to do what? Criminal law recognises many kinds of threat, including threatening violence, threatening to distribute intimate images and threatening to enter property. Here, the reference is simply to threatening behaviour, without any statement of the nature, gravity or object of the threat.

The concern is that "threatening" ends up tied to the defined term "harm". Harm is defined extremely broadly. If threatening means threatening to cause harm as defined, then threatening behaviour becomes an extremely wide concept, well beyond any ordinary understanding of violence.

Coercive

Coercive behaviour is by definition domestic violence for this purpose. To coerce means to compel or force a person to do, or refrain from doing, something.

What "compel" and "force" mean, and how they differ from each other, is not explained. In a broad sense, people in family relationships compel or force each other to do or not do things constantly, in ways nobody would describe as abuse.

As with threats, it does not appear to matter what the coerced behaviour actually was. Coercion of any kind, to do or not do anything, seems to be captured.

So a spouse who forces their partner to give up smoking has, on the words used, engaged in coercion and therefore in an act of domestic violence. There may be a defence available on the basis that the conduct was reasonable in context. Strictly, the definition still catches it.

Controlling or dominating

The final category is behaviour that in any other way controls or dominates the person and causes them to fear for their safety or wellbeing, or that of someone else.

"Dominates" appears here for the first time and is undefined. It is not clear how it differs from control. It suggests a significant degree of influence by one person over another, but the two terms substantially overlap, and it is difficult to think of dominating behaviour that is not also controlling.

The critical element in this category is the causal link. The behaviour must cause the person to fear for their safety or wellbeing, or that of another. That requirement does useful work, because it excludes a person who is fearful without cause.

It also adds another undefined concept: wellbeing. That is broader than safety, and it captures both physical and non-physical matters such as mental health. How far it extends depends on the definition courts adopt. The Cambridge dictionary defines wellbeing as the state of feeling healthy and happy. On that definition, fearing for your wellbeing could include fearing that you might not be happy, or that someone else might not be. That would be inappropriately wide.

It is to be hoped that courts move carefully before settling on a definition of wellbeing for these purposes.

Where this is going

Even at the level of the high level categories, there is a great deal to work through and a lot of unanswered questions about how these provisions will operate now that they apply.

These broad definitions are, for the moment, confined to the coercive control offence. Whether they migrate into other areas, including parenting matters, is worth watching.

If you are facing a coercive control allegation, or you have been served with a protection order application that refers to this conduct, speak to our coercive control team before you respond to police.