Allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour increasingly arise at the intersection of family and criminal law, yet the two systems approach them in different ways. The recent decision in LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 illustrates how such conduct is addressed within financial remedy proceedings and highlights the procedural tension that can arise when parallel family and criminal processes examine the same underlying allegations.
In LP v MP, the Family Court found, to the civil standard, that the wife had subjected the husband to coercive and controlling behaviour and made serious false allegations. Those findings informed the division of assets. The judge declined to delay determination pending the outcome of a related criminal prosecution, noting that the criminal process was unlikely to conclude within a time frame compatible with the family proceedings.
Procedural asymmetry
The criminalisation of controlling or coercive behaviour under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 has sharpened the focus on such conduct across jurisdictions. The same factual allegations may be examined in both forums, but within materially different procedural frameworks.
Criminal proceedings require proof to the criminal standard and are supported by extensive investigative powers and the disclosure framework under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA). By contrast, family proceedings apply the balance of probabilities and rely on material placed before the court by the parties and any directed evidence.
This asymmetry is particularly acute in relation to timing. Criminal investigations may take many months or years, whereas family proceedings often proceed with a strong emphasis on expedition. Fact-finding hearings may take place while a criminal investigation is still ongoing.
Findings may therefore be reached in one forum before the evidential picture in the other is complete, and without material that may emerge through the criminal process.
Disclosure, information sharing and their limits
Material disclosed in criminal proceedings is generally restricted to those proceedings unless it enters the public domain or permission is obtained, as reflected in sections 17 and 18 of the CPIA and Criminal Procedure Rule 15.7. The 2024 Protocol on the Disclosure of Information between Family and Criminal Agencies and Jurisdictions seeks to facilitate proportionate information sharing across proceedings. However, it creates no entitlement to disclosure and does not displace the statutory regime under the CPIA.
In practice, disclosure under the 2024 Protocol is often limited to high-level safeguarding information. Core evidential material, such as witness statements or recorded interviews, is generally unlikely to be disclosed prior to charge. Family courts may therefore determine serious allegations when the criminal evidential picture remains incomplete, and the defence has no formal right to disclosure.
Restrictions also apply to the use of material from family proceedings. While parties may share information for legal advice, there are limits on the use of documents outside the family court, and in some cases permission may be required before such material can be deployed in other proceedings.
The result is the absence of a single, coherent disclosure framework governing the same underlying allegations.
Evidential development reforms
Changes to the approach to third-party material, including counselling records, have raised the threshold for such material to be sought in criminal investigations. While intended to protect complainants, these changes may limit the material obtained, particularly at the pre-charge stage.
Although findings in family proceedings are not determinative in criminal cases, they may nonetheless form part of the broader evidential landscape. Findings of credibility in family proceedings may in practice inform decisions about further lines of enquiry.
Practical implications for practitioners
These developments give rise to several practical considerations. First, parties may be required to give detailed accounts in family proceedings, including under cross-examination, before the criminal process has engaged its disclosure regime. Second, the absence of a complete evidential picture may affect how allegations are framed and tested across the two systems.
For defendants, this may create the practical difficulty of responding to allegations across two forums without the benefit of disclosure that would ordinarily arise within criminal proceedings.
These dynamics give rise to practical challenges for practitioners. Advising clients across parallel proceedings may require careful judgement as to participation, timing and consistency of account, particularly where the evidential picture remains incomplete and the strategic priorities of each forum may diverge.
Conclusion
The decision in LP v MP reflects a broader trend toward increased scrutiny of coercive, controlling and other ‘deplorable’ behaviours, and highlights the procedural tensions between family and criminal processes. While the 2024 Protocol and related reforms represent a clear effort to improve coordination, they do not resolve the underlying differences in timing, disclosure and evidential development.
Current reform proposals, including proposals for a unique identifier for victims across the justice system, point towards greater integration between jurisdictions. However, the procedural frameworks governing disclosure, admissibility and evidential use remain distinct. Careful navigation of these overlapping systems will remain essential for practitioners, particularly where findings in one forum may be reached before the evidential picture in the other has fully emerged.
Rachel Cook is of counsel at Peters & Peters, London
No comments yet