Clinical Psychology Assessments in Coercive Control Litigation

The Medico-Legal Framework of Coercive Control

The recognition of coercive control as a psychological injury in civil litigation necessitates a rigorous, evidence-based approach to clinical assessment. Under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, coercive control comprises a pattern of assault, threats, humiliation, and intimidation. When instructing a psychiatric or psychological expert, solicitors must assist the expert in distinguishing between the psychological impact of these behaviours and pre-existing diagnostic entities.

Clinical assessments in this area often navigate the intersection of complex interpersonal trauma and chronic emotional dysregulation. Professionals tasked with this work often undertake specialist forensic psychology evaluation of trauma sequelae, ensuring that the clinical methodology remains aligned with recognised diagnostic frameworks while remaining sensitive to the claimant’s specific presentation within the litigation context.

Assessment Methodology and Diagnostic Considerations

Expert assessments aim to differentiate between the psychological sequelae of abuse and pre-existing vulnerabilities. The use of validated psychometric tools may assist in ensuring findings are objective, though the selection of such tools remains a matter for the expert’s clinical judgement. Considerations during assessment may include:

• ICD-11 criteria for Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD), particularly the distinction between core PTSD symptoms and disturbances in self-organisation (DSO).
• The DSM-5 criteria for PTSD, evaluating Criterion A in the context of exposure to threatened or actual harm.
• Symptom validity testing, which can provide data relevant to the court’s assessment of evidence, provided the limitations of such tests are acknowledged.
• Structured symptom assessment tools, such as the PCL-5, to quantify self-reported symptoms.

A trauma-informed methodology is intended to avoid secondary victimisation. The expert should maintain an objective, neutral stance, ensuring the clinical narrative is grounded in the evidence provided within medical records and witness statements rather than relying solely on the claimant’s subjective account.

Procedural Considerations under CPR Part 35

In civil proceedings in England and Wales, expert evidence is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 35. The overriding duty of the expert is to the court, which takes precedence over any obligation to the instructing party (CPR 35.3). Procedural compliance includes:

• Reporting Standards (CPR 35.10): Expert reports must clearly identify the literature and material relied upon and set out the substance of all material instructions.
• Single Joint Experts (CPR 35.7 and 35.8): Where the court directs that evidence be given by a single joint expert (SJE), the expert is appointed under CPR 35.7, and the instruction process is governed by CPR 35.8. An SJE provides an impartial opinion for the court rather than representing the interests of either individual party.
• Joint Statements (CPR 35.12): In cases where separate experts are instructed, the court may direct them to engage in discussions to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. This process is distinct from the SJE process and requires the experts to produce a joint statement.
• Proportionality (CPR 35.6): Any questions directed to an expert must be proportionate. Questions should focus on clarifying clinical reasoning and methodology.

Evidential Challenges and Causation

A frequent area of contention in coercive control claims is the attribution of psychological injury. While the ‘but-for’ analysis is a standard consideration for causation, experts must exercise caution in their conclusions, particularly regarding matters outside their specific clinical expertise. Key areas of focus include:

• Limitation Issues: In historic abuse claims, experts may be asked to address the claimant’s ability to disclose abuse at an earlier date, often considering factors such as ‘betrayal trauma’ or the psychological barriers to early disclosure.
• Apportionment: Where multiple factors contribute to a claimant’s mental health, the expert should attempt to disentangle the impact of the index abuse from pre-existing conditions or subsequent life events.
• Record Review: The quality of the expert opinion depends on the completeness of the clinical record. Instructing solicitors should provide a chronological bundle, including GP records, psychiatric history, and relevant safeguarding reports.

Multi-disciplinary input can be beneficial in complex cases, such as those where a psychiatric opinion may be usefully supplemented by a psychological assessment of cognitive function or an attachment-focused evaluation.

Guidance for Instructing Solicitors

To maximise the efficacy of expert evidence, solicitors should prioritise the following:

1. Define the Scope: Explicitly state the purpose of the report (e.g., condition and prognosis versus liability and causation) in the letter of instruction.
2. Manage Expectations: Advise the client that the expert’s duty to the court necessitates a neutral analysis, which may involve exploring factors that provide alternative clinical explanations.
3. Appropriate Expertise: Ensure the selected expert has specific experience in coercive control, as generalist practice may not provide the necessary framework for assessing subtle, non-physical abusive patterns.