Professor Vanessa Bettinson (Northumbria University), Dr Lucy Baldwin (Durham University), Melanie Kay McLaughlan (Northumbria University), Lara Coban, Zoe Deith, Kelly Gleeson, Paula Harriott, Louise Williams, Rosie X
Introduction
The ‘Female Offending Caused by Coercive Control’ Project was undertaken in recognition of growing awareness that women are being criminalised without sufficient, and in some cases, any regard to their status as victim-survivors of domestic abuse (Barlow, 2016; Centre for Women’s Justice, 2022). Legislation now recognises evolving legal understandings of different forms of domestic abuse, particularly coercive control, with s. 76 Serious Crime Act 2015 creating the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour and s. 1 Domestic Abuse Act 2021 establishing a broad definition of said abuse. However, these developments may assist women who make first contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) as a victim, but understandings of coercive control and its impact upon women’s criminality are less developed throughout the criminal justice process (Munro et al, 2024). In part, this could be explained by the inaccessibility of defences, e.g. duress and self-defence, for domestic abuse victims whose criminality is caused by their experiences of coercive control (Bettinson et al, 2024; Bettinson and Wake, 2024). As defendants, the victimhood of domestic abuse victims becomes irrelevant for the purpose of proving offences. Many women in the criminal justice system are therefore deprived of essential domestic abuse victim support, leaving them vulnerable to further exposure to coercion by intimate partners to commit future crimes (Barlow, 2016; Prison Reform Trust 2017).
This research explores the personal stories of women entering the criminal justice system as a defendant and the invisibility of their status as a victim of domestic abuse through abbreviated pen portraits. It explores the journeys, experiences and perspectives of six women who have been through the criminal justice system as offenders and whose crimes were the result of intimate partner coercive control. Its core research questions, developed by researchers and the researched are: who is even looking for control and coercion in the criminal justice system? And what can the criminal justice system do better to support females whose crimes are caused by coercive control?
The significance of participatory action design and what we did
The project adopts a participatory action design undertaken with women who have lived experience of their own criminalisation caused by the coercively controlling behaviour of an intimate partner. Importantly, all the women are no longer in contact with the CJS, a decision based on ethical care (Baldwin 2022; Quinlan, Baldwin and Booth, 2022). Although the women’s emotions are not, perhaps, as raw as they might have been when criminalised, for many imprisoned, the persistence of their memories about their CJS experiences reflect the depth to which they were felt. This clarity remains for many years, if not for life – thus making them as valid as if they were recalled as they were being experienced (Baldwin 2022). The purpose of this methodological approach is to give voice to those who might previously have been silenced or muted or have experienced trauma (Wahidin, 2004; Rubin and Rubin, 2005).
We began the participatory approach by speaking with a contact who works with criminalised women and who later invited a member of the research team to an online support group meeting, following ethical approval. Six women attended and after a brief outline of the project idea they raised issues that formed the research questions for this project and jointly agreed on the process of data collection. The latter consisted of joint interviews in the form of structured conversations, and semi-structured interviews led by either one of the research team or the women interviewed each other. These were transcribed and are undergoing a thematic analysis – the primary analytical technique for this project. A thematic analysis involves the researcher identifying patterns across the interview transcripts which can highlight similar issues and circumstances of the interviewees as well as differences. Whilst this process is a useful means to identify collective themes and meanings across each interview, the process of abstraction by the researcher causes ‘the uniqueness and contextualisation of the experience’ to be lost, which Blundell and Oakley describe as ‘fragmentation of the data’ (2024: 51). We therefore have built pen portraits (see below) to provide a holistic story of the women to ensure that the nuance of their story is not lost, thereby fulfilling a purpose of participatory action research – to give them a voice, where they may otherwise have been silenced.
The purpose of the pen portrait approach
There is scarce literature on the use of pen portraits as a method of analysis, or how they are used, which Blundell & Oakley (2024) have begun to address. There is no clearly defined, detailed definition of a pen portrait, but ‘they offer a descriptive account of a participant’s narrative’ (p. 45). For this project, we apply what Blundell and Oakley have labelled the ‘Single Pen Portrait Approach’ which is a descriptive and interpretative summary which represents the qualitative data held for an individual woman. The women have had the option of either writing their own portrait, with or without a researcher’s assistance, or approving one written by a researcher. This process is a secondary method of analysis and each pen portrait, regardless of its authorship, has been developed through the interpretation of interview transcripts and further discussion with the person whose journey the portrait describes.
A pen portrait allows qualitative research to include how the person felt and the matters that were most important to them. For example, here is an abstract from Zee Zee’s* pen portrait:
For Zee Zee, understanding her offending in the context of domestic abuse is confused with the fact that she was a drug user. Criminality was normalised and her rehabilitation requires her to look at her own responsibility in all areas of her life. This has her believing that her part in offending ‘was not leaving the relationship and putting herself in those situations.’
In the criminal justice system Zee Zee’s status as a victim of domestic abuse was often unrecognised. No police officers asked her about how she had sustained a black eye. She explains that the ‘courts would know that me and him were in and out on joint charges for a long period of time’ and thinks they could have intervened given that there were indications of domestic abuse. In prison, Zee Zee found that there were no domestic violence programmes in prison and that she was never offered any kind of support.
This abstract from Zee Zee’s pen portrait illustrates the impact of the invisibility of her victimhood that she experienced in the CJS, with no victim support or intervention offered. It also shows how she felt about that, for example, a belief that she is responsible for being in an abusive relationship.
For the women, it is important that practitioners are able to assess defendants as to any presence of coercive control that played a part in their offending given the conditions of uncertainty that prevent women knowing they are experiencing coercive control and speaking out. They also feel that disclosing abuse as a defendant is a process that women need supporting throughout, as would any victim of domestic abuse; the project provides insights into what form this may take. Understanding women’s experience of criminalisation caused by coercive control is essential in developing prevention pathways and supporting both their recovery and rehabilitation.
* a pseudonym
References
Baldwin L. (July 2022). Mothers in and After Prison. Sherfield on Lodden, Waterside Press.
Barlow, C. (2016) Women as Co-offenders: Pathways into Crime. Bristol: Policy Press
Bettinson, V, Munro, V.E. and Wake, N. (2024) “A One Sided-Coin? Attributing Agency and Responsibility in Contexts of Coercive Control” in M. Bone, J.J. Child and J. Rogers (eds.) Criminal Law Reform Now Volume 2: Proposals and Critique. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bettinson, V. and Wake, N. (2024) ‘A New Self-defence Framework for Domestic Abuse Survivors Who Use Violent Resistance in Response’, Modern Law Review, 87(1): 141-171.
Blundell, P. and Lisa Oakley, L. (2024) ‘Missing people and fragmented stories: painting holistic pictures through Single Pen Portrait Analysis (SPPA)’ Qualitative Research in Psychology, 21(1): 44-70.
Centre for Women’s Justice (2022) Double Standard: Ending the unjust criminalisation of victims of violence against women and girls. London: Centre for Women’s Justice.
Munro, V.E., Bettinson, V. and Burton, M., (2024) ‘Coercion, Control and Criminal Responsibility: Exploring Professional Responses to Offending and Suicidality in the Context of Domestically Abusive Relationships’, Social & Legal Studies, 33(3), 392-419.
Prison Reform Trust (2017) There’s a reason we’re in trouble’ Domestic abuse as a driver to women’s offending. London: Prison Reform Trust.
Quinlan, C., Baldwin L. and Booth, N. (2022) ‘Feminist Ethics and Research with Women in Prison’ Prison Journal, 102(2), 172-195.
Rubin, H. J., and Rubin, I. S. (2005) Qualitative interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wahidin, A. (2004) Older Women in the Criminal Justice System: Running Out of Time, London: Jessica Kingsley.
Defending Vulnerability 