Controlling or Coercive Behaviour - behaviour occurring outside of the United Kingdom

The victim and suspect are co-habiting and in a long-term relationship. The suspect has been controlling the victims finances and tracking her for an 18-month period. The couple go on a holiday to Spain, where the suspect continues controlling the victim’s finances and tracking her. The suspect leaves Spain taking the victim’s passport so she cannot return to the UK, in turn causing her to lose her job within the UK. Is an offence of coercive and controlling behaviour committed in these circumstances? 

The offence of coercive or controlling behaviour is provided for under sections 76 and 76A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 - 

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 creates the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour:

76(1) A person (A) commits an offence if -

(a) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive,
(b) at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected (see subsection (6)),
(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and
(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B.

Section 76A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 provides extra territorial jurisdiction for offences under section 76 committed outside the United Kingdom. 

76A(1) If -
 

(a) a person's behaviour consists of or includes behaviour in a country outside the United Kingdom,
(b) the behaviour would constitute an offence under section 76 if it occurred in England and Wales, and
(c) the person is a United Kingdom national or is habitually resident in England and Wales,

the person is guilty in England and Wales of that offence.

Where conduct abroad would amount to an offence under section 76 if it occurred in England and Wales, and the suspect is a UK national or habitually resident in England and Wales, then the suspect would be guilty of the offence in the UK.  The actions described in the scenario above would likely be deemed coercive and controlling behaviour for the purposes of this offence. Although the alarm and distress occurred to the victim whilst they were in Spain in this case, the impact was the loss of the job within the UK and therefore has a detrimental impact to the victim's usual day-to-day activities. As such, the offence under section 76 would be relevant and and section 76A would allow the offence to be progressed within the UK.

This is supported by the case of R v NS (2023), which involved similar circumstances. This case concerned an unsuccessful appeal against conviction for the offence. Whilst in Serbia, S removed passports from his children, preventing them from returning to the UK. S stated that as alarm and distress had been caused whilst the victim was overseas, not in the UK, the court did not have jurisdiction to try him. Section 76A did not apply to the case, having come in to force after the relevant behaviour took place. As section 76A did not apply, criminal jurisdiction was considered in territorial terms and as a substantial amount of S’ activities also took place in the UK, there was no doubt that an offence under the Act was was substantiated, even when part of the controlling activity occurred outside of the jurisdiction of the UK. The appeal was dismissed and S' conviction upheld.