Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing
It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for the way in which she introduced the e-petition and, of course, to Paris and her MP, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), who is here to represent her, for the work that they have done to draw this issue to the attention of the House. I am also grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the petition calling for the removal of sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling and coercive behaviour cases. This petition, on what is known by many supporters as Paris’s law, reflects a growing concern that our justice system must do more to recognise the unique nature of coercive control and its ongoing impact on victims; it is not something that comes and goes. Before I address the petition, I want to pay particular tribute to Hayley Staunton. Hayley was my constituent until her untimely death, by suicide, in August 2025. She was a domestic abuse victim, a survivor. Her death is a tragedy that has profoundly affected her family, as one might imagine, and her friends and the wider community. Although nothing can undo that loss, it is important to recognise the courage and determination that Hayley demonstrated in holding her perpetrator to account. She did make complaints, and he was charged and eventually imprisoned. I also pay tribute to Hayley’s mother Ruth Yates, who has campaigned tirelessly since Hayley’s untimely death for answers, accountability and change. She has worked relentlessly so that Hayley’s story could be heard, and to ensure that changes are made so that nobody else has to go through what Hayley did. She has shown immense dignity and resilience in the face of her unimaginable loss and heartbreak. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who recently met Ruth and me to discuss the circumstances of Hayley’s case and committed to a number of actions to ensure that lessons are learned from it. At its heart, today’s debate is about people like Hayley and families like hers. When Parliament created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, which was a breakthrough in itself—it had not been recognised in law before—it recognised an important truth: domestic abuse is not always physical. It can be psychological, emotional and deeply insidious. It is often characterised by a pattern of domination, intimidation and manipulation, creating a fear that gradually strips victims and those who experience it of their independence, confidence, sense of self and sense that they can have an impact on what is happening in their own lives. The petition argues that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour should not receive a sentencing reduction when they initially plead not guilty and only admit their guilt later in the process. That speaks to the concern set out by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), which my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) also spoke about from his experiences as a police officer: victims can spend months or years preparing themselves for trial, gathering evidence, reliving traumatic experiences, anticipating having to give evidence in court and to face the perpetrator again, and feeling like they are still being controlled by that person in a continuation of the offence that they have been charged with. Sometimes, that causes even more pain and trauma, only for the defendant to change their plea at the end and be given some kind of credit for it. The reduced sentence, even if it is only reduced by 10%, gives the perpetrator credit for effectively stringing along the person they have victimised. For many victims, that can feel like an extension of the very behaviour that they have sometimes endured for years and for which the justice system is seeking to hold that person to account. The uncertainty, delay and emotional toll can all compound the harm caused by the abuse. In Hayley’s case, she was subject to a violent attack by her then partner, during which he strangled her, rendering her unconscious and causing other serious injuries. Her perpetrator was charged with non-fatal strangulation, assault and actual bodily harm. He originally pleaded not guilty, only to later change his plea. His sentence was 36 months for the non-fatal strangulation, four months for a separate assault offence and a further 18 months for actual bodily harm. However, the 18-month sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the strangulation sentence, while the four-month sentence was added consecutively. I do not think that many of our constituents understand the way the justice system decides how to run sentences concurrently or consecutively. As a lawyer, I often find it quite difficult to explain this to my constituents: what seems natural to somebody who has been in the law for many years appears completely at odds with common sense to those having to deal with the justice system perhaps for the first time in the most difficult circumstances. Although concurrent sentencing is of course part of the existing sentencing framework, when someone has committed multiple acts of serious violence against the same victim it is right that we question whether the sentence that runs concurrently adequately reflects the full extent of that violence and the harm it has caused. There is a fine line between non-fatal strangulation that renders somebody unconscious and death. The trauma faced by people who survive such an experience is long-lasting and often impacts all areas of their lives. Of course, I recognise, as do many colleagues who have spoken in the debate, that the reasoning behind the sentence reduction for early guilty pleas—a principle that is a long-established part of our justice system—is that it saves courts time, reduces costs and can spare victims some of the trauma of having to give evidence, which can be an ordeal. Those are important objectives, particularly given the significant pressures on the courts and the court backlogs that have been going on for a number of years, leaving victims waiting longer and longer to actually face the ordeal of giving their evidence. In those circumstances, one can see the public policy importance of giving some kind of credit to encourage and incentivise guilty pleas where somebody is guilty. However, the cases that we are discussing today represent unique challenges. This offence is built around patterns of manipulation and control. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the current sentencing framework sufficiently reflects the additional harm that can be caused when a victim is led to believe they will have to endure a full trial, only for a guilty plea to be entered at the door of the court. Is that not just another instance of that person controlling the life of the witness or victim? Many survivors have told us that justice is not solely about the final sentence; it is also about the process and feeling heard, believed and respected. It is about ensuring that the criminal justice system does not inadvertently recreate dynamics that perpetrators have already used to exert control over their victims. The control the victim feels does not necessarily end when the perpetrator is arrested, imprisoned or no longer in direct contact with them; it certainly did not for Hayley. The fear and trauma can continue to dictate how they lead their lives, the decisions they make and whether they ever feel safe again. Although the debate specifically concerns guilty plea reductions in controlling and coercive behaviour cases, whereas Hayley’s attacker was convicted of non-fatal strangulation and assault, through that judicial process she continued to experience fear and a sense of being controlled by her perpetrator, even while he was on remand in prison before he was found guilty. I want the Minister to consider three specific issues in his reply. Will the Government commit to undertake a review of whether the current framework properly reflects the distinctive nature of coercive control and the prolonged psychological harm that can result from delayed admissions of guilt? Will the Government review the sentencing guideline for non-fatal strangulation, given the specific nature of that offence and the long-lasting repercussions of it for victims? Will the Government give consideration in the victims code and their violence against women strategy to the fact that many victims of coercive and controlling behaviour continue to feel controlled even when their perpetrator is in prison, and make adequate provision to ensure emotional support and safeguarding is available for those people? The strength of feeling behind the petition demonstrates that many people believe the balance is currently wrong. As we consider the issue today, we should remember that behind every statistic is a person, a family and a story. We should listen carefully to survivors who are telling us that the experience of seeking justice matters just as much as the outcome. I hope today’s debate will move us closer to a system that better understands coercive control. It is good that that offence is on the statute book—it has not always been—but we need to better support victims and ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done.