New QLD Offence of Coercive Control

Queensland now has a standalone coercive control offence. Here is what it means.

On 26 May 2025, coercive control became a criminal offence in Queensland. The new section 334C of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) makes it an offence, carrying a maximum of 14 years imprisonment, for a person to engage in a course of conduct toward an intimate partner that is coercive or controlling. Queensland joins New South Wales, which introduced a similar offence in 2024, in treating this pattern of behaviour as a crime in its own right, not merely as a precursor to physical violence.

The reform has a name attached to it: Hannah’s Law. Hannah Clarke and her three children were killed in Brisbane in February 2020. The coronial and legislative response to that tragedy drove years of work that eventually produced the Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld), which inserted the new offence. That context matters for understanding what the law is trying to do, and where its limits lie.

What the offence actually requires.

Section 334C is a course-of-conduct offence. That is its defining structural feature. The prosecution cannot point to a single incident, however serious, and charge it as coercive control. It must prove a pattern of behaviour over time, directed toward the same person, that is coercive or controlling in character.

The elements are:

• The accused is an adult, and the accused and the complainant are, or have been, in a domestic relationship. This is not limited to current or former intimate partners: it also covers family and informal care relationships.
• The accused engaged in a course of conduct against the complainant that consisted of domestic violence on more than one occasion.
• The accused intended the course of conduct to coerce or control the complainant.
• The course of conduct would, in all the circumstances, be reasonably likely to cause the complainant harm.
• The prosecution does not have to prove that the course of conduct actually caused harm (Criminal Code section 334D).

The statutory definition of “coercive or controlling” conduct is deliberately broad. It includes behaviour that isolates the complainant from family and friends, monitors their movements or communications, controls their finances, humiliates or degrades them, and uses threats or intimidation. Physical violence is not required. Financial abuse, surveillance, and sustained psychological pressure all fall within the scope of the offence.

How this differs from the existing domestic violence framework.

Queensland has had civil protection orders for domestic violence since the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld). Those orders can be made on the civil standard of proof and impose conditions on an alleged perpetrator’s behaviour. Breaching a protection order is a criminal offence.

The coercive control offence is categorically different. It is a standalone criminal charge, prosecuted in the criminal courts, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. It does not depend on any prior protection order. It does not require that physical violence occurred. It criminalises the pattern itself.

The two frameworks now sit side by side. A protection order remains available as a preventive civil remedy. A criminal charge under section 334C is available where the prosecution can establish the course of conduct and the criminal standard of proof is met. In serious cases, both proceedings may run concurrently.

The evidentiary challenge.

Prosecuting a course-of-conduct offence is harder than prosecuting a single incident. The prosecution must assemble evidence of multiple acts over time, establish that they form a pattern, and prove the requisite intent. Witnesses, phone records, financial records, and the complainant’s own account will all be central. The complainant’s credibility, and any delay in reporting, will be scrutinised in the usual way.

The defence must also grapple with the course-of-conduct structure. Each individual act alleged may be explicable in isolation. The question for the jury is whether, taken together, the conduct was coercive or controlling and was intended to be. This requires careful attention to each element and to whether the prosecution’s narrative of a pattern is actually supported by admissible evidence.

There is also the question of the complainant’s response. The Act recognises that victims of coercive control may have made decisions, including staying in the relationship or not reporting incidents, because of the control being exercised over them. Courts can take that into account. But the practical reality is that many victims do not immediately recognise what has happened to them as criminal conduct, and some will be reluctant witnesses.

The reform in context.

Queensland’s path to criminalising coercive control was not quick. The Domestic and Family Violence Protection (Combating Coercive Control) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (Qld) made changes to the civil framework and laid groundwork for the criminal offence. The standalone criminal provision, inserted by the 2024 Act, came into force on 26 May 2025 after an extended implementation period that included training for police and prosecutors.

That implementation period reflected the genuine difficulty of enforcing this type of offence. Police need to understand how to investigate a pattern rather than an incident. Prosecutors need to build files differently. And defence lawyers need to understand both the elements and the limits of the new offence, including what does not qualify as a course of coercive conduct.

Not every controlling or difficult relationship meets the statutory threshold. The law requires proof that the accused intended the course of conduct to coerce or control the complainant, and that the course of conduct was, in all the circumstances, reasonably likely to cause harm. It does not require proof that harm was actually caused. Relationship friction, poor communication, or controlling behaviour that falls below the threshold of criminal conduct does not satisfy the elements. The Act also provides a specific defence: it is a defence for the accused to prove that the course of conduct was reasonable in the context of the relationship between the accused and the complainant as a whole. That distinction matters enormously for anyone facing a charge under section 334C.

What it means for people charged or at risk.

If you are facing a charge under section 334C, the range of conduct the prosecution may seek to rely on is potentially very wide. Early legal advice is essential. The structure of the offence means that how the prosecution frames the “course of conduct” will shape the entire case. Defence strategy must be built around the specific acts alleged and whether they, individually and collectively, satisfy each element.

If you are in a relationship where coercive or controlling behaviour is occurring, the criminal offence is now available alongside civil protection orders. The practical reality is that criminal proceedings take longer to resolve, require a higher standard of proof, and may be more difficult to pursue if the complainant’s cooperation is uncertain. Civil protection orders remain an important and often faster remedy.

For anyone dealing with related assault and violence charges or navigating the domestic violence framework, the new section 334C will increasingly form part of the charging landscape in serious cases.

Last updated 6 May 2026.

If you would like to discuss your matter, you can book a consultation or call (07) 5554 6116.