FD24P00124 - [2025] EWHC 621 (Fam)

[15/12/2023, 11:47:57] [F]: ?*

[15/12/2023, 11:47:19] [M] ⁠⁠ : The restaurant we

went to on your birthday is nicer…

[15/12/2023, 11:52:37] [F]: Please don’t put on too

much make up ”

I have a clear sense that F knew that he had fallen short of the expectations of his wife’s family. However, the whole code by which he lived his life caused him to recoil from those more traditional relationship models. They were anathema to him. His obvious respect for his sisters and his mother left him entirely unable to behave in the way that, paradoxically, might, sometimes, have made it easier for his wife. However, on some level, he also wanted to signal to M’s family that their daughter and sister was now his wife, anticipating that they would gradually absorb this change and respect it as consistent with their own belief structures. One illustration of this tension is the last comment in the text exchanges above. F says to M “please don’t put on too much make up”. Ms Cameron-Douglas advances this as an example of F’s controlling behaviour, asserting that F is telling M how she should look. Whilst controlling a person’s appearance certainly can be a feature of ‘controlling behaviour’, this will always depend on context. In F v M [2021] EWFC 4, I emphasised the importance of identifying patterns of behaviour:

The overall approach to the assessment of evidence here is the same as in any other case. What requires to be factored into the process is the recognition of the insidious scope and manner of this particular type of domestic abuse. The emphasis in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, is on "repetition" and "continuous engagement" in patterns of behaviour which are controlling and coercive. Behaviour, it seems to me, requires, logically and by definition, more than a single act. The wording of FPD 2010 12J is therefore potentially misleading in so far as it appears to contemplate establishing behaviour by reference to "an act or a pattern of acts". Key to assessing abuse in the context of coercive control is recognising that the significance of individual acts may only be understood properly within the context of wider behaviour. I emphasise it is the behaviour and not simply the repetition of individual acts which reveals the real objectives of the perpetrator and thus the true nature of the abuse.”

In the earlier paragraph, I had observed the following:

… I do consider that a tight, overly formulaic analysis may ultimately obfuscate rather than illuminate the behaviour. I respectfully agree with the general approach taken to evaluating evidence expressed by Peter Jackson J (as he then was) in Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41 and Baker J (as he then was) in Devon County Council v EB and Others [2013] EWHC 968. Whenever Judges are called upon to resolve issues of fact, we do so by evaluating separate strands of evidence and then considering them in the context of the whole. Some features of the evidence will weigh more heavily than others and evidence which may not be significant, in isolation, may gain greater relevance when placed in the context of the wider evidential canvas. It seems to me that the definition in the FPR (see para 101 above) provides some useful guidance, when it is broken down:

Coercive Behaviour:

a pattern of acts;

such acts will be characterised by assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation but are not confined to this and may appear in other guises;

the objective of these acts is to harm, punish or frighten the victim.

Controlling Behaviour:

a pattern of acts;