Debate contribution: Protecting Victims of Coercive Control
Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 5 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Protecting Victims of Coercive Control
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5525206
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion. I speak to an issue that is all too often hidden from view but never absent from our society. Coercive control does not always leave bruises that can be seen, nor does it always present in ways that are easily recognised or even understood. It happens quietly behind closed doors and shut windows. It happens in private spaces, where fear can take hold and control is exercised in ways that are deliberate, sustained and deeply damaging. This is not just about physical violence; it is about the pattern of behaviour, and it is about intimidation, isolation, monitoring, threats and manipulation. It is about one person exerting power over another day after day, until that person begins to feel that they have no control over their own life. Often, it is women who are living through that. We know that around two thirds of victims of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland are female. Behind those figures are real lives shaped by fear, control and isolation. They are the lives of women who feel unable to leave, feel trapped or fear what might happen if they try to leave. Coercive control is rarely straightforward and is often bound up in relationships where there are children, where the home is shared or where finances are intertwined and lives are deeply connected. That makes it harder to walk away and harder to seek help, and it makes it easier for perpetrators to maintain control. We also know that leaving is often the most dangerous point for the victim. The risks of serious harm can increase when someone attempts to leave their abuser. We have taken important steps to recognise those forms of abuse in law. As others have said, the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 was a really significant moment. It acknowledged that abusive behaviour is not limited to physical harm and that coercive control must be taken seriously. Recognition on paper alone, however, is not enough, and the motion is clear that many of the protections that were intended to support victims have been only partially implemented. The safeguards that should be there in our courts are not consistently in place, and victims still face barriers when they try to access justice. We cannot ignore that, nor can we accept a situation where a victim can still be directly cross-examined by the person who has abused them. We cannot accept a system where access to legal aid is so complex or restrictive that it deters people from seeking protection. We cannot allow court proceedings, particularly in family courts, to become another arena where coercive control is continued and, in fact, reinforced. For many victims, leaving the relationship is not the end of the abuse; it can be the point at which it escalates. Perpetrators can use legal processes to maintain contact, exert pressure, intimidate and re-traumatise. That is not justice; it is a continuation of harm through the very systems that are meant to provide protection. When we talk about giving people the courage to leave, we have to be honest about what that means and what it requires. It requires more than words and more than awareness. It requires a system that works for victims, not against them; the full commencement of the protections that the Assembly has already agreed; simpler and more accessible legal aid; and practical safeguards in our courts to see that victims are not placed back in harm's way. It also requires a broader cultural understanding of what coercive control looks like, because, too often, it goes unrecognised. Too often, it is minimised. Too often, victims are asked why they stayed rather than why the abuse was allowed to continue. We need to change that. We need to send clear messages that coercive control is abuse, that it is serious and that those experiencing it will be supported, protected and believed, because behind every statistic is a person — a woman, mostly — who is living in fear —
— and weighing up the risks of staying against the risks of leaving. We will support the motion and the amendment.
690 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.54 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.46 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:38 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.