Why are we releasing offenders early if coercive control is taken seriously?

I’m an Advocate for victims/survivors of domestic abuse; it’s totally embedded into my DNA now. I chose this work because I never wanted anyone to face the journey to freedom from abuse alone. So, I find myself thinking about the new legislation, sentencing changes and criminal justice reforms through one simple lens: “What does releasing offenders early mean for the victims?”

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion around sentencing reform, reducing the use of custody, expanding community-based sentences and introducing earlier release arrangements. I understand why those conversations are happening. However, my concern is that in all the discussions about prisons, probation and capacity, the voices of victims can easily become lost.

What particularly stands out to me is the recent recognition of the seriousness of coercive and controlling behaviour.

For years, those of us working within the domestic abuse sector have been trying to help professionals and the wider public understand that coercive control is not a lesser form of abuse simply because it doesn’t always leave visible injuries. Survivors have long told us that the intimidation, surveillance, isolation, manipulation and psychological abuse they experience can affect every aspect of their lives and continue long after the relationship has ended.

Recent updates linked to the Serious Crime Act 2015 Section 76 and MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements) have further recognised that reality. Offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour who receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more are now subject to automatic MAPPA management. In effect, their offending is being recognised as presenting a level of risk that requires the same multi-agency oversight we would expect for certain sexual and violent offenders. (Of course, many of the offenders meeting the 12-month threshold are likely to have been convicted of other offences alongside coercive control, often reflecting a broader pattern of abusive behaviour.)

However, that recognition matters, right…?

It sends an important message that coercive control is serious. It acknowledges what survivors have been telling us for years.

The government has said that rape offences and certain child sexual offences will be excluded from the changes to early release, but if coercive control is now recognised as serious enough to place offenders under automatic MAPPA management because of the ongoing risk they pose, how will that risk continue to be managed where offenders receive suspended sentences, shorter custodial terms, or are released early. So here goes….

These are the questions survivors ask the professionals who are supporting them. They are not asking about prison capacity or sentencing policy. They are asking whether their abuser will know where they live, whether they will breach orders, whether they will start contacting friends and family again, whether the harassment will start back up, and importantly whether anyone will be paying attention when it does.

The reality is that perpetrators of coercive control don’t always stop being controlling because a relationship ends or because a sentence has been served. In many cases, the abuse simply changes shape. That is why I find the current conversation so important.

For me, the question is not whether reform should happen, the question is whether the infrastructure needed to manage risk outside custody are in place first. Because recognition without protection means very little to victims. Many survivors have spent years being told that what they were experiencing was not serious enough, obvious enough or understandable enough to warrant support. For some, a successful prosecution is the first time somebody has finally said, “We believe you. We recognise what happened to you.”

If that same survivor, then sees the perpetrator released early, managed differently or in some ways no longer monitored, it is understandable that they may question whether the system really understands the risks after all.

As professionals, we know that custody alone doesn’t keep victims safe. We know that safety planning, effective perpetrator management, information-sharing and risk assessment are what make the difference. But if coercive control offenders are now rightly being recognised as presenting risks comparable to other high-harm offenders, then we need to be having honest conversations about what happens when they receive shorter sentences going forward.

And perhaps now more than ever, our role is to continue amplifying their voice, asking the difficult questions and ensuring that victim safety remains at the centre of the conversation, not something that gets debated as an afterthought.