# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timothy Brehmer: from coercive control to loss of control -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week Timothy Brehmer was acquitted of the murder of Claire Parry. Brehmer, a former police officer, had not denied that his actions had killed her. Instead, he said that he had not intended to kill her.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The husband of a nurse killed by her policeman lover has said he is disappointed with the verdict, after the killer was sentenced to 10 and a half years in jail for manslaughter having previously been cleared of her murder.

Timothy Brehmer, 41, killed Claire Parry, also 41, a married nurse and a mother of two, after she sent a text message from his phone to his wife saying: "I am cheating on you."

Parry, from Bournemouth, died from a brain injury after severe neck compression during what was described in court as a "kerfuffle" in Brehmer's car. The two had met in the car park of the Horns Inn in West Parley, Dorset, on 9 May, where she confronted him about another of his extramarital affairs, the court heard.

Brehmer, a constable with Dorset police, claimed Parry accidentally sustained the fatal injury as he tried to push her out of his Citroën so he could drive away, and his arm "must have slipped in all the melee".

He was acquitted of murder by a jury at Salisbury crown court, but had previously admitted Parry's manslaughter. Passing sentence, Mr Justice Jacobs said Brehmer must serve two-thirds of his prison sentence before applying for parole.

"This is a case where I should sentence you on the basis you lost your self-control following the sending of the text message to your wife where the affair was revealed, rather than on the basis that you had no intention to kill or cause really serious harm," the judge said.

"I am sure that you did deliberately take Claire Parry by the neck, applying significant force with your forearm or the crook of your elbow for a period of time while she struggled against you thereby causing the severe neck injuries which the pathologist described."

The trial heard the injuries would have resulted from significant force to the neck for a minimum 10 to 30 seconds and possibly longer.

As a "trained and experienced" road traffic police officer, Brehmer would have known Parry was seriously injured yet did nothing to help her, the judge said. He could not have thought, as he said in his police interview, she was "simply taking a breath", the judge added.

"You must have known that her body had gone limp after your assault on her. Before you walked to the car park entrance you must have seen how she was hanging half out of the car."

Brehmer, described in court as a "womaniser" and whose wife was a police officer, had been having an affair with Parry, whose husband was also a Dorset police officer, for more than 10 years, the court heard.

Parry had "fought hard" against Brehmer, "if only for a short while". Brehmer had stabbed himself three times with a penknife. The judge said he had sought at the scene to blame Parry for stabbing him, lying to police and others at the time. "These lies were in my view particularly serious," the judge added, given Brehmer's job.

He said Brehmer only just met the "qualifying trigger" for a loss of control defence in that he had a "justifiable sense of being wronged" because he should have been the one to tell his wife about the affair.

He accepted Brehmer had "been a good policeman", was remorseful and the killing was not premeditated. He also accepted jail would be "particularly difficult" as being a police officer placed him in a vulnerable position in prison.

Karen Ingala Smith, of the sexual violence charity nia, which runs the Counting Dead Women project, said: "Timothy Brehmer's time in jail will be significantly shorter than his relationship with Claire Parry. It will also be significantly shorter than the duration of the pain of those who loved her. The criminal justice system in this country is failing women."

Shaista Aziz, from the domestic abuse charity Solace Women's Aid, said: "We welcome the judge making it clear that the violence inflicted on Claire Parry was deliberate. This is important - you can't accidentally break someone's neck. It's important the record was set straight there."

However, the judge's comments that Brehmer lost self-control "is typical of the language used to justify violence against women and girls", she said, and Brehmer's suggestion "that it just happened" was typical of excuses made by perpetrators of abuse and violence, Aziz said.

After Brehmer's acquittal for murder, the Centre for Women's Justice tweeted: "We know so many women serving life sentences for murder after lashing out in fear of their abusers, yet this man who is described as using 'grooming' techniques to exert coercive and controlling behaviour, escaped a murder conviction."

In a statement after sentencing, Parry's widower, Andrew, said he was "incredibly disappointed" at the verdict and believed Brehmer to be a "well-practised liar" whose account was "inconsistent and untruthful".

Brehmer, who he said the trial had exposed as "consistently dishonest, deceitful and devious", had conducted a factory reset on his mobile phone minutes after the killing, which "hindered the police investigation and leaves us with an incomplete picture of events on that day", he said.

"What we do know is that Brehmer used such force against Claire that she suffered fractures to her neck, lost consciousness, went into cardiac arrest and eventually died."

Brehmer failed to "render any assistance to her which could have saved her." Instead he "chose to tell lies" by stating Parry had stabbed him. "This lie led to a delay in Claire receiving what could have been lifesaving treatment, a fact that remains incredibly distressing."

The statement added: "Claire was a caring nurse practitioner who helped many people in a career of over 20 years. She was a loving family member and a doting mother who leaves behind two young children.

"Her energy and enthusiasm for life were infectious and our lives are poorer without her in them. This trial has been a horrendous ordeal for all of Claire's family and friends. We ask that our privacy is respected while we try to rebuild our lives."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dorset police officer jailed for 10 years for lover's manslaughter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The husband of a nurse killed by her policeman lover has said he is disappointed with the verdict, after the killer was sentenced to 10 and a half years in jail for manslaughter having previously been cleared of her murder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Penelope Jackson 999 Call Husband & Wife React #penelopejackson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Loss of Control Qualifying Trigger OBJECTIVE TEST Self Control Old Law Old Law New Law S3 ....would make a reasonable man do as the defendant did... New Law Fear Trigger Old Law Anger Trigger S54 D had fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will 'coercive control' law quash this wife's conviction for murdering her husband? | ITV News

# data[].attributes.headline
Emma has been married to her husband Joe for 15 years. During the relationship prior to thebirth of their first child, Joe was a loving husband who cared greatly for Emma. However afew weeks into her first pregnancy, Joe began to be abusive to Emma. He controlled whatclothes she wore and who she was friends with. He restricted her movements outside thehome and monitored her weight. He gave her an allowance to spend each week and wouldlaugh and mock her when she did not have enough money to buy essential products. Hewould track her on her mobile phone and would insist that her location was always visible.He only ever beat her once. Then, she was hospitalised with a broken nose and two brokeneye sockets. The beating happened after she had tried to leave with her children to go to awomen’s refuge.Over the years, Emma’s choices and freedom gradually reduced until she felt she could notdo anything without Joe.One particular evening whilst Emma was making the couple’s dinner, Joe entered thekitchen and forced Emma’s head close to the burning hob. Emma screamed in fear but Joewould only release her when she stopped screaming. Later into the evening whilst Emmawas stacking the dishwasher and Joe was asleep, Emma, whilst deeply hurt and upset,grabbed a breadknife and stabbed Joe as he slept. She then continued to clean away afterdinner and make the children’s lunch boxes up for school the next day. She then rang 999.Joe died as a result of his injuries.*“there is a long way to go before victims of coercive and controlling behaviour can get justiceand the understanding they deserve. There needs to be a radical transformation of thecriminal justice system which is still steeped in misogynistic myths and stereotypes” HarrietWistrich, Director, Centre for Women’s Justice*Discuss Emma’s liability with reference to the above statement and your reading on this CriticalIssue.

# data[].attributes.subject
Emma has been married to her husband Joe for 15 years. During the relationship prior to thebirth of their first child, Joe was a loving husband who cared greatly for Emma. However afew weeks into her first pregnancy, Joe began to be abusive to Emma. He controlled whatclothes she wore and who she was friends with. He restricted her movements outside thehome and monitored her weight. He gave her an allowance to spend each week and wouldlaugh and mock her when she did not have enough money to buy essential products. Hewould track her on her mobile phone and would insist that her location was always visible.He only ever beat her once. Then, she was hospitalised with a broken nose and two brokeneye sockets. The beating happened after she had tried to leave with her children to go to awomen’s refuge.Over the years, Emma’s choices and freedom gradually reduced until she felt she could notdo anything without Joe.One particular evening whilst Emma was making the couple’s dinner, Joe entered thekitchen and forced Emma’s head close to the burning hob. Emma screamed in fear but Joewould only release her when she stopped screaming. Later into the evening whilst Emmawas stacking the dishwasher and Joe was asleep, Emma, whilst deeply hurt and upset,grabbed a breadknife and stabbed Joe as he slept. She then continued to clean away afterdinner and make the children’s lunch boxes up for school the next day. She then rang 999.Joe died as a result of his injuries.*“there is a long way to go before victims of coercive and controlling behaviour can get justiceand the understanding they deserve. There needs to be a radical transformation of thecriminal justice system which is still steeped in misogynistic myths and stereotypes” HarrietWistrich, Director, Centre for Women’s Justice*Discuss Emma’s liability with reference to the above statement and your reading on this CriticalIssue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sally Challen's son David outside the Court of Appeal. Jonathan Brady/PA Wire

The quashing of Sally Challen's conviction by the Court of Appeal for murdering her husband Richard in 2010 will give hope to those who believe that abuse can and should reduce the level of blame afforded to those who kill their abusers. Criminal courts have traditionally been slow to recognise the effect abuse has on victims and Challen will now face a retrial for murder - one that should take into account the alleged coercive control she is believed to have suffered during her marriage.

A person coerces and controls a victim using a pattern of behaviour that isolates them from sources of support, subordinates them and makes them dependent upon the abuser. Using coercive or controlling behaviour towards an intimate partner or family member became a criminal offence under in the Serious Crime Act 2015. In one sense Challen's case has been successful at raising the profile of this kind of behaviour, now recognised as a common feature of many domestic abuse relationships. And leave to appeal against her conviction was granted in 2018, partly based on the argument that there had been significant advances in society's understanding about domestic abuse, and particularly the use of coercive control.

Avenues of defence

But there are limits to the Challen appeal decision. The reported comments of the appeal judges suggest that the court quashed Challen's conviction for murder not so much for the fact she allegedly endured coercive control, but on the basis that she had suffered from two mental disorders which were not known at her trial. Should this be the case, then it will be a disappointment for campaigners trying to raise awareness of the impact of coercive control.

At the time of the killing in 2010, relevant provisions under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 had not come into force, meaning that the legal defences available to Challen were either provocation or diminished responsibility. The former requires a sudden loss of control in response to provocation, whereas diminished responsibility is established where the defendant experiences an abnormality of mind at the time they killed. But neither defence was successful in Challen's case.

A Court of Appeal decision quashing Challen's conviction on the basis of a mental disorder that was not known at the time of her trial means that once again defending women who kill relies on showing they were "mad" rather than centring on the behaviour that caused them to kill.

Coercive control advocates have argued that the effects of being subject to a pattern of continuous subjugation in an intimate relationship make all targeted victims vulnerable. They argue that this vulnerability is not only acute for those who are able to show that they have a mental disorder. Research illustrates the toll domestic abuse has upon victims. The number of suicides by women who are victims of domestic violence in England and Wales is estimated to exceed those killed by their partners or ex-partners. Attempted suicides by women subject to domestic violence are five times more prevalent compared to those not subject to it.

Persuading a court

The decision to quash Challen's conviction may have limited use to the majority of victims of coercive control who enter the criminal justice system as defendants, because it specifically concerns avenues for defence in instances of murder as I've previously argued.

Where there is evidence of physically abusive behaviour, self-defence may be used as a defence where the abused person attacks the abuser. However, the force used in response to the perceived threat must be reasonable, something that may not be appreciated by members of a jury who may not understand the meanings behind the gestures used to threaten the victim.

In cases where the coercive and controlling behaviour is predominantly psychological, it will also be very difficult to persuade a court that force was needed to escape the abuser. Currently, if an abused person commits a crime as a result of being coerced or controlled there is no defence in law for this. Although on the face of it duress may be a possible defence, it has been interpreted too narrowly for the coerced and controlled defendant to use.

The high-profile nature of Challen's case and the decision to order a retrial does carry hope for other future cases that have some similarities to Challen's. The first opportunity to test its reach will be the appeal case of Emma-Jayne Magsun, who was also granted leave to appeal her murder conviction in November 2018. The Challen case has raised the profile of coercive control, but juries still need to be clearly informed about the impact this form of abuse has on victims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sally Challen: what quashing of murder conviction means for similar cases alleging coercive control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The quashing of Sally Challen's conviction by the Court of Appeal for murdering her husband Richard in 2010 will give hope to those who believe that abuse can and should reduce the level of blame afforded to those who kill their abusers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Not everyone was celebrating when Sally Challen's murder conviction for killing her husband was quashed. The backlash on social media indicates we still have a long way to go before domestic abuse is properly understood.

Interestingly, that backlash comes from women as well as men. These are often women who claim not to be able to understand Challen's actions as depicted in court. Why didn't she leave, they ask, convinced they would have behaved differently in her place.

They think they would not have ended up in an abusive relationship in the first place. And even if they had, they would have found a way to end the relationship appropriately - by simply leaving, or filing for divorce, not by killing their partner.

Challen's case has been sent for retrial so all the issues will be decided in court. It it likely to involve the use of coercive control as a partial defence to murder. However, the kind of response seen on social media displays a wider problem which will continue to limit the use of the offence of "controlling or coercive behaviour".

The offence was introduced in England and Wales in 2015 to criminalise the non-physical aspects of domestic abuse. But there is still insufficient understanding of the individual psychology and social factors which explain why a victim can become entrapped in a relationship characterised by coercive control, and be unable to leave.

For instance, the response of the brain and nervous system to trauma, coupled with gendered expectations of behaviour, can help to explain the behaviour of those who stay with abusive partners. And the most dangerous time for an abused woman is the time when she does try to leave.

If these aspects of domestic abuse are not widely understood, those determining whether an offence has been committed may be unable to recognise the controlling and coercive nature of the behaviour, and its impact on the psyche and behaviour of the victim.

The science behind staying

Current thinking in neuroscience and attachment theory tells us that in a dangerous situation, such as when facing the prospect of rape or physical violence, we are hard-wired to preserve our attachment relationships (our connection with our primary attachment figure who, after childhood, is often a romantic partner) above all else. After a person has attempted fight, flight and freeze in the face of a physical or verbal attack, they will often surrender as a final defence mechanism.

This involves appearing compliant, as though they are making autonomous choices to behave in the way the abuser has asked them to, when in reality they are utterly subservient to the abuser's will. When the victim survives the attack with their attachment to the abuser still intact, their brain records it as a success and automatically behaves in the same way again next time.

Without an understanding of this neuroscience, a victim may feel confused and ashamed of their compliance, believing they are responsible for what happened to them because they didn't fight back or run away. In reality they are traumatically bonded to their abuser and complying with their demands in order to survive.

Gendered expectations then serve to further disguise the coercive nature of the abuser's behaviour. According to the sociologist Evan Stark, it is impossible to separate coercive control from an analysis of gender and the expectations associated with feminine and masculine gender roles and identities.

The tactics of coercive control can involve the micro-regulation of everyday domestic activities typically associated with the appropriate role of a woman within a heterosexual partnership. This might include rules and demands about who she sees and where she goes, how she dresses, cooks, cleans, looks after children, and how she performs sexually.

These strategies reinforce a specific construction of feminine identity. And due to the cultural association of masculine identity with control, the male dominance and controlling behaviour typically seen in a coercive relationship may be hard to discern. It may instead be considered to fall at the extreme end of the spectrum of power relations that exist within what many people consider to be "normal" heterosexual partnerships.

This means that structural gender inequality both underpins the offence and also acts to normalise it. Without seeing the ways in which gendered expectations may serve to obscure the coercive and controlling nature of certain behaviours, it may be decided that there is insufficient evidence that the behaviour had a serious adverse effect on the victim for the purposes of proving the offence in a criminal court.

When these factors are brought together it is easier to see why many victims do not recognise they are being abused. It also demonstrates why society - and the criminal justice system - struggle to see the lack of autonomy afforded to women in coercive and controlling relationships. They then often end up holding her accountable for taking extreme action, when she could have just "walked away".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Domestic abuse: the psychology of coercive control remains a legal battlefield

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not everyone was celebrating when Sally Challen's murder conviction for killing her husband was quashed. The backlash on social media indicates we still have a long way to go before domestic abuse is properly understood. Interestingly, that backlash comes from women as well as men.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Event:

This research was launched at an online event on 17th February 2021. Speakers included Harriet Wistrich, Sophie Howes, Pragna Patel, Sally Challen, Dame Vera Baird QC, Professor Elizabeth Sheehy and Naz Shah MP.

A recording of the event can be watched below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Women Who Kill - Centre for Women's Justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This research was launched at an online event on 17th February 2021. Speakers included Harriet Wistrich, Sophie Howes, Pragna Patel, Sally Challen, Dame Vera Baird QC, Professor Elizabeth Sheehy and Naz Shah MP. A recording of the event can be watched below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
76 Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-

(a) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive,

(b) at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected,

(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and

(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B.

(2) A and B are "personally connected" if-

(a) A is in an intimate personal relationship with B, or

(b) A and B live together and-

(i) they are members of the same family, or

(ii) they have previously been in an intimate personal relationship with each other.

(3) But A does not commit an offence under this section if at the time of the behaviour in question-

(a) A has responsibility for B, for the purposes of Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (see section 17 of that Act), and

(4) A's behaviour has a "serious effect" on B if-

(a) it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or

(b) it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) A "ought to know" that which a reasonable person in possession of the same information would know.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b)(i) A and B are members of the same family if-

(a) they are, or have been, married to each other;

(b) they are, or have been, civil partners of each other;

(d) they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not the agreement has been terminated);

(e) they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (whether or not the agreement has been terminated);

(f) they are both parents of the same child;

(g) they have, or have had, parental responsibility for the same child.

"civil partnership agreement" has the meaning given by section 73 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004;

"child" means a person under the age of 18 years;

"parental responsibility" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;

"relative" has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.

(8) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for A to show that-

(a) in engaging in the behaviour in question, A believed that he or she was acting in B's best interests, and

(b) the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable.

(9) A is to be taken to have shown the facts mentioned in subsection (8) if-

(a) sufficient evidence of the facts is adduced to raise an issue with respect to them, and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(10) The defence in subsection (8) is not available to A in relation to behaviour that causes B to fear that violence will be used against B.

(11) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
76 Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship (1) A person (A) commits an offence if- (a) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive, (b) at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected, (c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and (d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B.