The Domestic Abuse Bill: A Necessary Step Toward Protection and Reform

The scale of the problem

Domestic abuse is significantly under‑reported due to the power and control exerted by perpetrators. In 2019, 2.4 million adults experienced domestic abuse, a twenty‑four per cent increase from the previous year. Thirty per cent of women and over sixteen per cent of men will experience abuse during their lifetime. Lockdown conditions have exacerbated the issue, with calls to helplines increasing by forty‑nine per cent and unlawful killings doubling.

Despite its prevalence, domestic abuse has never been governed by a single comprehensive statute. Instead, relevant provisions are scattered across legislation including the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Children Act 2004 and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. The fragmented nature of the law has long been criticised by the Home Office, cross‑party groups and campaign organisations.

Section 1: A statutory definition of domestic abuse

Section 1 of the Bill introduces the first statutory definition of domestic abuse. The current non‑statutory definition encompasses controlling, coercive, threatening, violent or abusive behaviour between individuals aged sixteen or over who are intimate partners or family members. It includes psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional abuse.

The Bill adopts a similar definition but replaces “financial abuse” with “economic abuse”. This broader term captures situations where perpetrators restrict access to resources, employment or transport. Although the change is modest, the Government argues that statutory recognition will improve understanding, encourage reporting and ensure consistent enforcement.

A key concern is that the absence of a statutory definition has created ambiguity. Police forces often fail to recognise non‑physical abuse as criminal, resulting in low referral rates to the CPS. A 2014 Home Office consultation found that eighty‑five per cent of respondents believed the law did not adequately protect victims, particularly in relation to coercive and controlling behaviour.

Section 1 requires two elements: the parties must be “personally connected” (defined in Section 2), and the behaviour must be “abusive” (as set out in s.1(3)). The inclusion of emotional, coercive, controlling and economic abuse is a welcome development. However, concerns remain that the definition does not sufficiently address culturally specific forms of abuse affecting minority communities. Although s.1(3)(e) includes “other abuse”, interpretation may vary, potentially leaving practices such as forced marriage, honour‑based violence, female genital mutilation and immigration‑related coercion insufficiently recognised.

Special measures and practical protections

The Bill introduces several practical reforms aimed at improving victim protection. One significant change is the automatic eligibility for special measures when victims give evidence in criminal proceedings. Currently, courts must be satisfied that fear or distress would adversely affect the quality of evidence. Removing this requirement acknowledges the inherent vulnerability of domestic abuse victims and reduces barriers to justice.

Section 52 provides for polygraph testing of offenders released on licence, mirroring existing arrangements for certain sexual offenders. The aim is to monitor compliance with licence conditions and enhance public safety. Critics, including Liberty, argue that polygraph testing undermines rehabilitation and threatens rights under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the ECHR. Concerns also arise regarding trust between offenders, probation services and wider society.

Cross‑examination reforms

The Bill prohibits perpetrators from cross‑examining victims in family proceedings. This addresses a serious gap created by limited legal aid funding, which often leaves alleged abusers unrepresented and able to question victims directly. The Bill imposes a blanket ban on cross‑examination by individuals convicted, cautioned or charged with specified offences. Courts may also prohibit cross‑examination where it would diminish the coherence or accuracy of evidence or cause significant distress.

A court‑appointed advocate will conduct cross‑examination instead. While this protects victims, it highlights ongoing concerns about legal aid underfunding and the lack of broader reforms to ensure fair representation for all parties.

Additional reforms

The Bill contains further important measures not explored in detail here. These include:

• A statutory duty on local authorities to provide support for victims and their children. • Statutory guidance for the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (“Clare’s Law”). • Introduction of Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders.

These reforms aim to strengthen prevention, improve support services and enhance the legal tools available to protect victims.

Conclusion

The Domestic Abuse Bill represents a long‑awaited and necessary step toward a coherent and effective legal framework.

It provides statutory recognition of domestic abuse, expands protections for victims and introduces practical measures to reduce reoffending. Although imperfections remain, particularly regarding cultural nuance and the implications for offender rights, the Bill marks a significant advancement in addressing one of the UK’s most serious and persistent crimes.