Rates and Features of Detection Avoidance in Intimate Partner Femicide in Australia

Abstract

Despite known links with intimate partner femicide (IPF), rates of detection avoidance (DA) in IPF are unknown. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were undertaken using data compiled by the Domestic Violence Death Review Team (DVDRT). DA was evidenced in 43% of 100 IPF cases examined from Queensland Australia, between 2006 and 2019. DA IPFs were perpetrated by males between the ages of 36 and 45 years, in urban locations and more often involved unknown causes of death and escalating violence prior to the homicide. Offenders had histories of abuse, coercive control and other criminal behavior. Themes uncovered include DA offenders using isolation, discrediting the victim and monitoring her prior to the IPF as both abuse and DA. Offenders planned the homicide and DA, falsified the narrative of the death, and obstructed the police investigation. Results imply DA is common and impactful, even when revealed. Implications for practitioners include recognizing high rates of DA in IPF cases.

Keywords

gender femicide feminist theory comparative methodology investigation policing rural subtypes intimate partner victim/offender relationship

The aim of this research is to fill the gap in knowledge surrounding intimate partner femicide (IPF) offenders and their use of detection avoidance (DA) in Australia. This includes examining rates of DA in IPF cases, specific strategies used, situations in which they are utilized, and background characteristics of victims and offenders of IPFs with DA.

IPF is the homicide of a woman, perpetrated by a current or former male intimate partner, and can be a lethal consequence of intimate partner violence (IPV; Bugeja et al., 2015). Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is the broader term for this violence and is understood to capture all genders and sexualities, while femicide only represents female victims (Pierobom de Avila, 2018). IPF accounts for the largest proportion of femicides in Australia and many countries internationally (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2018). Over the last two decades IPF has increasingly been researched as a preventable offense (Bugeja et al., 2013; Cullen et al., 2019; Dobash & Dobash, 2015); meaning most scholarship focuses on prediction rather than examining post-offense dynamics and offender behaviors, like DA.

DA is described in the research as a behavior that many homicide offenders, most frequently IPF offenders, engage in (Ferguson, 2021). It has been defined as any behavior that an offender employs to hide, destroy, or manipulate evidence to avoid detection or apprehension by police (Ferguson, 2021). While DA can be used by offenders in all types of homicides, including stranger and sexual homicide (Beauregard et al., 2012; Beauregard & Bouchard, 2010), it appears most often in cases where there is a close personal relationship between victims and offenders, most notably IPH/Fs (Eke, 2007; Ferguson, 2015; Schlesinger et al., 2014). Pettler (2015) argued that offenders engaging in crime scene staging (a form of DA) are most likely to be male, and victims female. Empirical work has found that IPH is the most frequent type of homicide to be concealed as something else, using DA (Eke, 2007; Schlesinger et al., 2014). Indeed, DA in IPH commonly involves concealment of the homicide as a non-suspicious death (also referred to as crime scene staging), and/or planning the homicide to access victims or kill them in a manner that avoids accountability (Bitton & Dayan, 2019; Ferguson, 2021; Monckton Smith, 2020). Concealment is a particularly problematic form of DA, because it creates the potential that murders will be misclassified as non-criminal deaths or missing persons (Ferguson & McKinley, 2020).

Little research has been dedicated to studying DA in IPF, let alone concealment specifically. Australian work is even less common. This is despite several scholars acknowledging the frequency with which DA behaviors are used by IPF offenders and the impact these have on resulting death investigations (Ferguson, 2021; Ferguson & McLachlan, 2023; Monckton Smith, 2020). The scarcity of literature is likely partially due to the difficulty in examining concealed femicide. Data sources examining femicide are based on traditional methods of classification, which may fail to capture femicide that is not flagged as such by an official investigation (i.e., in those cases that are successfully concealed; Bitton & Dayan, 2019). Data that does capture cases involving concealment frame these cases as “concealed-and-later-revealed femicides” (Bitton & Dayan, 2019, p. 1055). Broadly, the available scholarship has found crime scene staging occurs in homicide cases at a rate anywhere between 0.1% and 8% (Ferguson, 2015). The variance of the rate is further obscured when it is considered that these figures only capture the concealed-and-later-revealed cases, meaning those that are not revealed are, of course, never counted. Rates of broader forms of DA are not discussed in the literature on IPF, IPH or any other type of homicide.

DA Tactics Used

As examined in sexual offending literature (see Beauregard et al., 2012) as well as homicide and IPH research (see Ferguson 2021; Ferguson & McKinley, 2020), the planning and concealment of a crime for the purposes of DA is only one reason an offender may engage in this behavior (Ferguson, 2021). Ferguson (2021) proposes that a need for control is an additional motivation for concealment. Manipulation of the victim’s body and the narrative of her life and death investigation allows the offender to maintain control even post-homicide, by drawing on the innocent façade. This need for control may explain higher levels of DA seen in IPH/F cases, presuming offenders of all types would prefer to avoid accountability for their homicide (Ferguson & McLachlan, 2023). Ferguson (2021) proposes the same behaviors used to control the victim in life are also used to avoid detection surrounding and post-homicide. Ferguson frames DA behaviors against those proposed by Pence and Paymar (1993) in the Duluth power and control wheel. Included in the modified wheel are DA tactics such as isolation, intimidation, and coercion and threats, pointing to shared aspects of DA for the purpose of control and common IPV behaviors (Ferguson, 2021).

Ferguson (2015, 2018) has found that along with concealment of the death as non-suspicious, planning is a key feature of DA in IPH. Planning behaviors such as the offender selecting and bringing a specific weapon to the scene, falsifying information about the victim’s wellbeing or whereabouts before and after their death, and fabricating an alibi are characteristics of DA in IPF that have emerged in recent research (Bitton & Dayan, 2019; Ferguson, 2021). Monckton Smith (2020) analyzed 25 cases of IPF to track offenders’ progression from before the relationship began through to the IPF. She noted eight stages of IPF that offenders followed, pre-relationship, early relationship, relationship, trigger/s, escalation, change in thinking, planning, and homicide. In this timeline, Monckton Smith (2020) identifies behaviors in the planning stage that align with the DA literature, including the offender making plans to conceal the murder. In the final stage, she refers to the possibility of offenders’ “covering up” the homicide (Monckton Smith, 2020). The identification of planning and concealment as common and evidencing a predicted progression of IPV to IPF suggests further examination of DA in IPF is required. These findings indicate that concealment and planning are strongly linked to IPF (Bitton & Dayan, 2019) but need further investigation to determine their frequency and likely presentation.

To begin to fill this gap in the scholarship, this project examined all IPF cases occurring in the Australian state of Queensland between 2006 and 2019. This is the first study of DA in IPF to assess a complete population of IPF cases. The project examined:

How often is DA present in IPF?

What are the most common DA tactics used in IPF?

How do IPFs involving DA differ from IPFs without DA?

Method

To unpack the frequency with which DA is used in IPF cases, the specific tactics perpetrated, and the context under which they occur, all IPFs in Queensland between 2006 and 2019 years were examined (N = 100). By focusing on IPF, the study aimed to highlight the importance of the relationship between the victim and offender, while expanding the scholarship linking DA and IPF (Bitton & Dayan, 2019; Schlesinger et al., 2014). The population of cases was sourced from the Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Unit (DFVDRU). Domestic Violence Death Review Teams (DVDRTs) have been implemented globally, collecting detailed and comprehensive data on domestic homicides (including IPH and IPF; Bugeja et al., 2013; Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board, 2019). The Queensland DFVDRU, one of several DVDRTs in Australia, examines risk factors and gaps in existing responses to IPV to provide recommendations to service providers and agencies that encounter perpetrators and victims prior to the homicide (Bugeja et al., 2015). They collect data on all cases of domestic homicide, including every IPF and IPH case occurring within the state (population = 5.4 million; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023), offering the most comprehensive data source available. The data is gathered for the specific purpose of identifying patterns and risk factors in homicide and is overseen by a board of experts, including the State Coroner (Queensland Courts, 2022).

Data Collection

This project was part of a larger examination of IPF in Queensland. As such, the method employed for accessing and analyzing the dataset is provided comprehensively elsewhere. Briefly, the study involved researchers accessing the highly secure and protected data by attaining “genuine researcher” status with the State Coroner’s Court. All cases of IPF for the years 2006 to 2019 (N = 100, 100 victims and 100 offenders) were then assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively using a mixed-method approach. The criterion for inclusion was that the femicide was perpetrated by a male offender, toward a female victim that they either currently were in an intimate relationship with or had previously been in an intimate relationship with. The relationship need not involve previous IPV. All data was collected by the first author attending the Coroner’s Court several days a week in 2020–1. Case files were comprehensive (the longest comprising six paper boxes of material), containing detailed information on the background of victims and offenders (including demographic, medical, mental health and criminal histories) and their relationship, and the brief of evidence compiled by police investigators surrounding the IPF and post-offense behavior of offenders (including witness statements, interviews with the offender, autopsy reports, forensic examinations, photographs, videos and so on). Case summaries were compiled to capture details about relationship status and length, living arrangements, presence of children, types of violence, events and behaviors leading up to and during the IPF, and any DA. By following a structure for each summary, a consistent pattern was developed for qualitative coding. Once all cases were collected and reviewed it was apparent that a small portion were missing key data concerning the offender, characteristics of the death, and important dates. To locate missing data, a search of the media database Factiva was conducted. These searches were only performed when deemed necessary for inclusion of the case in the dataset; such as in those that did not provide basic details like demographics or relationship status but did contain other comprehensive information not available elsewhere.

Data Analysis

The data analysis procedure used in this study drew on both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore DA in the IPF cases (see McLachlan, 2023a for more detail). Quantitatively, demographic and offender variables were assessed descriptively using a frequency analysis. A cross-tabs analysis comparing cases with and without DA was then conducted using the same variables, and Pearson’s Chi-square tests for significance were undertaken. This quantitative method for analysis has been utilized by other scholars in this area (see Eke, 2007; Schlesinger et al., 2014) and therefore was deemed an appropriate method for the current research. For the qualitative examination of cases, cases were deidentified and brief case summaries were created for each. A thematic analysis, using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach, of the summaries was then conducted to identify key themes and further unpack quantitative findings. Summaries were entered into NVivo, for qualitative coding, and themes were identified through this process. All qualitative information is presented in de-identified form to maintain security of the data.

Results

To answer the three questions posed by this project, the 100 cases of IPF were first categorized into those involving elements of DA and those without. This determination involved assessing the presence or absence of DA behaviors such as concealment, which is the most visible and purposeful of the DA behaviors in the sample, as well as less visible forms such as planning, manipulation of evidence, falsifying the narrative of the death to police or others, and obstructing the criminal investigation such as by destroying evidence, creating a false alibi or misleading investigators about the victim’s movements or whereabouts. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were used to identify these behaviors to determine whether each case involved DA.

Frequency of DA in IPF and Demographics of Offenders

Forty-three per cent of offenders were categorized as using DA, 55% as offenders without DA, and 2% were found to be unknown due to missing data. The remaining analyses examined the 98 offenders who could be categorized as either DA or non-DA offenders. Demographic characteristics of DA IPF perpetrators are summarized in Table 1. DA IPF offenders were commonly aged between 36 and 45 years (34.9%) and were more likely to be employed (41.9%) than not. When examining the Indigenous status, over three quarters (86%) of DA IPF offenders were non-Indigenous. Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders made up a small part of the DA sample population as well as in the overall population (14% respectively). The sample size of DA offenders is too small to comment on the representation of any particular ethnicity, however the colonial context and systemic violence that is experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders must be noted in any consideration of the perpetration of DA IPF (see Cripps, 2023; Cripps & McGlade, 2008; Oxley, 2020). Most DA offenders had a criminal history (60.5%) however more offenders than not had no recorded perpetration of IPV (44.2%). More than half of DA offenders (58.1%) resided and perpetrated IPF in major cities, followed by inner regional locations (20.9%).

Table 1.

Frequency Table of DA IPF Offender Demographics.

DA offender demographics	N	%
Age range
16–25	2	5
26–35	14	33
36–45	15	35
46–55	5	12
56–65	4	9
66–75	3	7
Indigenous status
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander	6	14
Non-Indigenous	37	86
Employment
Employed	18	42
Unemployed	16	9
Retired	4	37
Unknown	5	12
Criminal history
Yes	26	61
No	13	30
Unknown	4	9
Previous perpetration of IPV
No	19	44
Yes—Physical	3	7
Yes—Non-physical	3	7
Yes—Physical/Non-physical	12	28
Unknown	6	14
Location
Major city	25	58
Inner regional	9	21
Outer regional	8	19
Remote	0	0
Very remote	1	2
Total	43	100

Common Tactics Used by DA IPF Offenders

A thematic analysis highlighting common behaviors that offenders used when engaging in DA before and after the IPF was undertaken. Of the 43 cases which were classified as DA IPF, broad tactics included offenders isolating and discrediting the victim prior to the IPF, monitoring the victim prior to the homicide, planning, falsifying the narrative surrounding the death, and obstruction of the police investigation. While isolation and monitoring the victim are tactics of abuse, in this study, they were also examined as tactics of DA as they facilitated offenders’ ability to avoid witnesses, escape suspicion post-IPF and control the death narrative.

Isolating and Discrediting

As discussed in the literature review, coercive controlling behaviors lend themselves to DA and facilitate an offender’s manipulation of the perception of the victim post-IPF. Put another way, common tactics of abuse can be useful for avoiding detection for a homicide, and offenders may use them for this purpose as well as controlling the victim while they are alive. DA offenders may use tactics of isolation and discrediting the victim in life to provide themselves more control over how the victim is remembered and how the offender is perceived after perpetrating the IPF. Table 2 provides excerpts from two case summaries that demonstrate how these tactics are used. Common behaviors from perpetrators included isolating the victim from their family and friends, discrediting the victim after disclosures of violence, changing their behavior to appear non-violent, restricting a victim’s access to social media, and physically isolating the victim over a long period of time.

Table 2.

DA IPF Tactics of Isolation and Discrediting.

During his relationship with Person 36 Offender 36 was controlling, jealous, and possessive. Person 36 accessed health services and disclosed that Offender 36 sexually assaulted her. After separation, Offender 36s abuse escalated through stalking, technology facilitated abuse, verbal abuse including threats to kill, attempts to isolate Person 36 from her friends and family, threats to harm Person 36, and trying to discredit her reports of violence and fears for her safety. Offender 36 attended Person 36s residence with a plan to kill her. He killed Person 36 and disposed of her body. Her remains have not been located. He was charged with murder.

Offender 94 was the full-time carer for Person 94. It is unknown if there was violence perpetrated prior to Person 94s murder however Person 94 had not left her house in a year or been seen by her children. Offender 94 planned the IPF and killed Person 94. He claimed to police that he thought she had killed herself. He was charged with murder.

In isolating the victim either socially or physically, the offender can control the flow of information regarding non-fatal violence perpetrated, as well as reducing the number of witnesses to violence that could cast suspicion on the offender post-IPF. Restricting access to social media further isolates the victim and allows the offender to reduce the amount of information that is written down or saved on computers outside of their access. This physical and electronic isolation may increase the time offenders have to use DA (such as by victims not being missed for longer) or reduce connections between the fatality and the offender. Discrediting the victim’s reports of abuse impacts DA by reducing suspicion of the offender during the death investigation by police and family members.

In case 36, the victim was isolated from her family and friends, and her attempts to report the violence she experienced were discredited by the offender. This ultimately led to her becoming socially and physically isolated, which was exploited by the offender to murder her and successfully dispose of her body before she was reported missing. In Case 94, the offender physically isolated the victim from her family and the wider community, limiting her ability to report violence, and creating an opportunity for him to manipulate the narrative of the death without the fear of other witnesses challenging his account.

Stalking and Monitoring

Stalking and monitoring can be coercive controlling behaviors that are both useful to offenders in the relationship, and further lend themselves to DA post-IPF. Surveilling the victim provides the offender with information such as disclosures of violence the victim has made, and times or places where the victim might be vulnerable or alone. Table 3 details a case where the offender used these tactics, including monitoring the victim at work, and deleting information from, destroying, and/or installing monitoring software on her devices.

Table 3.

DA IPF Tactics of Stalking and Monitoring.

Offender 99 used technology to facilitate non-physical abuse including forcing Person 99 to video chat with Offender 99 to show where she was and who she was with, installing keylogging software onto her device, and sending explicit sexual or self-harming videos of himself without her consent. He also broke into her house shortly before her murder and went through her phone while he stood over her sleeping in her bed. Offender 99 physically destroyed multiple phones belonging to Person 99. He tried to isolate her and threatened to stop her from seeing her family in her home country. During Offender 99s interactions with one service, shortly before the IPF, he disclosed his plan to kill Person 99 and a wish to kill all women. After significant surveillance, Offender 99 attended Person 99s residence and killed her, knowing she would be alone. He then left the scene with the murder weapon however was intercepted by the police and charged with murder.

Monitoring their victims either physically or through technology gives offenders information that could be used to avoid suspicion or detection. Victims may change their behavior when they know they are being watched and choose not to disclose violence for their own safety. Doing so may further assist with DA by obscuring past victimization and risk from the offender to investigators. If an offender does suspect the victim has evidence of violence that could be used against him, the offender can use their access to the victim’s property to destroy it before or after the IPF.

Planning

Planning is a commonly discussed feature of DA although it can be difficult to detect without an offender’s admission. While less visible than some other tactics, two cases with planning elements are provided in Table 4. Common tactics of planning included perpetrating IPF in the victim’s home or in an isolated location and preparing to escape police custody before the IPF occurred.

Table 4.

DA IPF Tactics of Planning.

Offender 37 was controlling and after separation this abuse escalated as he stalked and used technology to abuse Person 37. Offender 37 lured Person 37 to his home under the guise of discussing their relationship but with the intention and plan to kill her. He was charged with murder.

Person 57 advised Offender 57 she wanted to leave the relationship and take her son back to her own country. Offender 57 had been planning on killing Person 57 for weeks and carried out his plan at their residence in front of their child. He then attempted to conceal the homicide and leave the country. He was charged with murder.

Planning allows offenders to take actions before the IPF that could assist with DA. When perpetrating in the victim’s home, the offender may pre-select or bring a weapon, and have a plan on how they will cause the death. This often involves indoor scenes and at times when there are no witnesses. Alternatively, offenders may pre-select isolated locations for the IPF. Killing the victim in these locations allows offenders to prevent evidence being deposited in their own space, reducing connections between them and the IPF. An isolated crime scene may also avoid witnesses, and create delays in locating the victim’s body, both facilitating DA.

Falsifying the Narrative

After the IPF has occurred, offenders can attempt DA in other ways, such as creating a false narrative of the crime. Falsifying the narrative around the IPF allows offenders to take control of initial investigative theories and portray themselves as a co-victim or a protector of the IPF victim. Table 5 presents three cases where the offender used tactics such as self-injury, crime scene staging, and false suicide pacts to escape detection or avoid full accountability.

Table 5.

DA IPF Tactics of Falsifying the Narrative.

According to Offender 25, during sex he would consensually strangle Person 25 and she would also strangle him. This was used by the offender post-IPF to justify previous injuries Person 25 sustained. Offender 25 and Person 25 attended a mutual regional location and Offender 25 killed Person 25. Offender 25 then planned to commit suicide however did not follow through. He then left the body in an isolated location and led police and family and friends of Person 25 on a false search for Person 25, claiming she was still alive. Once Person 25s body was found, Offender 25 suggested to police that he and Person 25 had made a suicide pact which he was unable to complete. He was charged with murder.

Offender 34 killed Person 34 in a homicide suicide attempt. Offender 34 survived his suicide attempt and used it to stage the crime scene as an accident. He was not charged with murder but did receive other criminal charges.

Offender 70 attended Person 70s location shortly before the murder and Offender 70 claimed during this time he made a suicide pact with Person 70. Offender 70 planned the IPF, purchasing a weapon on the night of the murder. Offender 70 killed Person 70 and gave himself superficial wounds as part of the “suicide pact” however forensic evidence did not support his injuries as a genuine suicide attempt. He was charged with murder.

Falsifying the narrative of the IPF allows offenders to control how they are perceived and tell a story that paints them innocently. Self-injury can be used by offenders to suggest their perpetration of IPF was provoked by the victim and that their violence was a reaction to their own safety being threatened. While this was not successful in allowing the offender to avoid detection entirely in the cases examined, offenders attempted it, nonetheless. False narratives can be used to manipulate the legal system to receive a lesser charge or sentence, and provide another opportunity for the offender to control the victim after death by portraying her as violent and ultimately responsible. Falsifying a suicide pact is another way for offenders to control the narrative, this time suggesting the victim was complicit in their death and that it was a failure of the offender that they were not also deceased. Offenders may also stage an IPF to appear as though the victim’s death was an accident for which the offender was not responsible. This method of controlling the narrative allows offenders to be viewed positively and sympathetically by investigators and/or the public.

Obstruction of the Investigation

Similar but separate to falsifying the narrative of the IPF is obstruction of the resulting investigation. An offender may try to impede the police’s efforts to understand the events of the IPF by lying to friends or family members of the victim, lying to police, hiding the body, destroying evidence, and creating false evidence to suggest the victim is still alive. Two cases are detailed in Table 6 in which the offender attempted to obstruct the investigation of the IPF in some way. In some cases, the result of obstructing the investigation of the victim’s death led to lesser charges such as manslaughter.

Table 6.

DA IPF Tactics of Obstructing the Investigation.

Offender 69 was sexually jealous of Person 69 and threatened to cut off her head. Person 69 was fearful of Offender 69. Offender 69 killed Person 69 and lied to police about the murder to avoid suspicion. Her body has never been recovered. He was charged with murder.

Offender 71 killed Person 71 and then took her body to an unknown location. He then used her phone and identity information to make it appear as though Person 71 was still alive. Offender 71 was charged with murder.

An offender’s efforts to impede the police investigation of the IPF are often done pre-emptively to keep suspicion from themselves. Lying to friends and family members of the victim about her wellbeing may give the offender more time before police investigate. Destroying evidence or hiding the victim’s body may be an offender’s way of reducing links to the IPF when it is discovered. Offenders may even volunteer to lead a search for the “missing” victim to appear helpful and avoid suspicion. Offenders may impersonate the victim after she has been killed to prevent the discovery of her death.

How Does DA IPF Differ From IPF Without DA?

To understand how DA offenders are unique in their perpetration of IPF, IPF offenders who did not engage in DA behavior (n = 55) were compared with the sample of DA offenders (n = 43). Table 7 outlines the differences between DA and non-DA offenders, as well as the significance of each variables association with DA. Of the variables examined, three were significantly related to DA when Chi-square analyses was performed, including cause of death, escalation, and homicide-suicide.

Table 7.

Comparison of DA and Non-DA IPF Offenders by characteristics.

IPF offender characteristics	DA		Non-DA		p-Value
IPF offender characteristics	N	%	N	%	p-Value
Employment					.226
Employed	18	42	26	47
Unemployed	16	9	13	24
Retired	4	37	3	5
Unknown	5	12	13	24
Criminal history					.476
Present	26	61	26	47
Absent	13	30	18	33
Unknown	4	9	11	20
Previous IPV perpetration					.205
Present	18	42	11	20
Not recorded	19	44	31	56
Unknown	6	14	13	24
Location					.132
Major city	25	58	21	38
Inner regional	9	21	13	24
Outer regional	8	19	12	22
Remote	0	0	3	6
Very remote	1	2	6	11
Cause of death*					.001*
Blunt force trauma	7	16	6	11
Gunshot wound	1	2	13	24
Strangulation/suffocation	6	14	5	9
Wound from sharp object	14	33	25	45
Other	3	7	4	7
Unacertained	12	28	2	4
Coercive control					.205
Present	34	79	32	58
Not recorded	3	7	7	13
Unknown	6	14	16	29
Verbal abuse					.874
Present	30	70	32	58
Not recorded	7	16	9	16
Unknown	6	14	14	26
Physical abuse					0.201
Present	28	65	26	47
Not recorded	15	35	24	44
Unknown	0	0	5	9
Escalation*					.015*
Absent	11	26	19	35
Physical violence	6	14	0	0
Non-physical violence	9	21	16	29
Physical/non-physical violence	15	35	11	20
Unknown	2	5	9	16
Planning					.660
Present	17	40	19	35
Not recorded	26	60	35	64
Unknown	0	0	1	2
Witnesses					.299
No witnesses	35	81	36	66
Witnesses killed	1	2	4	7
Witnesses harmed	1	2	4	7
Witnesses unharmed	6	14	11	20
Contact with police					.597
Present	20	46	18	33
Absent	20	46	28	51
Unknown	3	7	9	16
Homicide-suicide*					<.001*
Completed/Attempted	6	14	29	53
Absent	37	86	26	47
Total	43	100	55	100

Significant at <p = .05.

In over a quarter of DA IPF cases (27.9%), the cause of death was unable to be determined by the coronial investigation while only 3.6% of non-DA cases had the same outcome. Chi-Square tests showed this difference to be significant at p = .001. Non-DA IPF offenders were more likely (34.5%vs. 25.6%) to commit IPF without escalating violence prior. None of the non-DA offenders escalated their perpetration of physical violence while nearly 15% of DA offenders did increase the severity or rate of the physical violence prior to the IPF (14.6%). The difference in escalation was significant in Chi-Square analysis at p = .015. DA IPF offenders were significantly less likely to suicide after the IPF (14%), when compared with non-DA IPF offenders, over half (53%) who attempted or completed suicide after the IPF. The difference was found to be significant in Chi-Square analysis at p ≤ .001.

While the remaining variables were not associated at a significant level, some variables remained of interest. DA offenders had a history of IPV perpetration at over twice the rate of non-DA IPF offenders (42% vs. 20%), meaning offenders who engaged in DA were more likely to have some criminal experience in perpetrating violence. Supporting this, DA offenders were 14% more likely to have a criminal history than non-DA offenders. Offenders who used DA were 20% more likely to have lived and perpetrated in major cities than non-DA offenders. Coercive control was over 20% more likely to be perpetrated by DA offenders than non-DA offenders (79%vs. 58%). Verbal and physical abuse were more likely to have been perpetrated by DA offenders than non-DA offenders, with DA offenders being 18% more likely to have perpetrated both types of violence. It should be noted however that coercive control, physical abuse, and verbal abuse are under-reported and under-recorded and those cases without reported violence may have involved undetected forms of violence.

Cause of Death, Escalation, and Homicide-Suicide

To determine if any variables were significantly related to DA, Chi-square analyses were performed. Significance testing was performed for each variable and identified three significant associations (see Table 7 for p values for each variable). The variables of escalation, cause of death, and homicide-suicide demonstrated a significant association with DA.

Discussion

This project aimed to address the gap in knowledge concerning DA in IPF, which has yet to be examined empirically. DA occurred in 43% of IPF cases in Queensland Australia, aligning with emerging research and challenging the perception of IPF offenders acting impulsively (Dobash & Dobash, 2015; Monckton Smith, 2020). Commonly offenders who engaged in DA were men between the ages of 36 and 45, employed, and living in a major city. These offenders had a criminal history, often related to IPV. It should be noted that many features of DA in the IPF cases examined are reflective of risk factors for IPV and IPF more generally. Tactics such as stalking, isolation, technology-facilitated abuse, and physical and non-physical violence are demonstrated to be linked both to the perpetration of lethal violence and the concealment of that violence, suggesting that the risk of lethality and of an offender engaging in DA tactics may be related.

Context of IPF and Tactics of DA

Overall, DA IPFs appear to occur in the context of coercively controlling relationships where there is a pattern of abusive behaviors that entrap and instill fear into the victim (Stark, 2018; Wangmann, 2021). This is to be expected considering the high rates of coercive control found within the population of Queensland IPF cases and more broadly within victims of IPV and family violence (Douglas et al., 2020; Harris & Woodlock, 2021, 2022; Johnson et al., 2019; McLachlan, 2023a). Individual acts of physical and emotional violence were also highly utilized by DA offenders prior to the IPF in this population—more than in cases without DA; and it appeared that IPV was escalating in the DA IPFs. Such escalation was evidenced by increased instances of physical abuse and increased electronic and physical monitoring of the victim.

DA IPF offenders showed evidence of planning the homicide in some cases and many perpetrated the IPF without any witnesses, which could also demonstrate forethought. In their research, Ferguson& Sutherland (2018) and Monckton Smith (2020) both found that planning is a key feature of DA in IPF and this is reflected in the current results. While it is difficult to determine which offender actions are spontaneous, and which are tactics employed specifically to avoid blame and/or capture, planning was evidenced in these cases by things like bringing weapons to the scene or selecting them beforehand, luring or forcing victims to isolated locations, or attacking victims in their homes when they are known to be alone. The thematic results revealed that planning facilitated DA in the sample by reducing witnesses to the IPF and connections between the offender and the scene; as well as creating delays in discovery of the death. The impact of these behaviors on a resulting investigation may be significant and is supported in other DA research, including Ferguson & McKinley (2020).

Criminal histories unrelated to IPV were common in the sample of DA IPF offenders. These histories might involve previous violent behavior outside of intimate relationships, property offenses, or financial crimes. Other scholars studying DA have noted the importance of measuring crimes of deception as there appear to be links between this type of experience and later DA while perpetrating a homicide. Eke (2007) noted sometimes long histories of fraud and deception of authorities (and others) in her sample of IPH offenders using DA, and Ferguson (2021) has drawn similar conclusions. Such a criminal history is not unexpected given the personality of offenders who utilize DA in IPF outlined elsewhere, including being callous, deliberate, and instrumental in their offending (Ferguson, 2021; Ferguson & McLachlan, 2023). The current findings support this research, suggest criminal versatility in these types of offenders, and establish links between DA in IPF and experience in attempting to avoid detection for other crime types as well.

The specific DA tactics utilized in this sample and emerging in the descriptive and thematic analyses included falsifying the narrative surrounding the IPF and obstruction of the police investigation. DA offenders engaging in self-injury to evidence the false narrative is a notable tactic not seen at this rate in other research. In injuring themselves before contacting authorities, offenders created a new narrative in which they were a victim of the decedent, or another attacker. Doing this shifts the blame from the DA offender to the victim herself (i.e., in self-defense or suicide pact narratives) or with another party. It also allows offenders to appear sympathetic. Ferguson (2015) similarly found some offenders self-injuring to create an alibi for missing time (e.g., by claiming they were unconscious), or to garner sympathy, though these behaviors were often seen in staged home-invasion cases which did not appear commonly here. Regardless, the presence of self-injury speaks to the strong motivation behind the DA, where significant effort and mental fortitude may be required to self-injure in the ways demonstrated. It similarly points to extreme attempts to manipulate the narrative surrounding the victim’s death, and the level of investigative resources that may be required to recognize, document, and attribute such injuries to the offender rather than the source indicated within a short time after they are discovered. Such resources may similarly be required to undermine other elements of suicide pact or unknown attacker narratives, adding layers of complexity to death investigations involving IPF and DA (Ferguson & McKinley, 2020).

Some DA offenders obstructed the death investigation in other ways, such as by creating signs of life of the victim or providing explanations for her absence to family and friends. These behaviors assist with DA by delaying a death investigation commencing and obscuring timelines. Other offenders destroyed evidence or hid the victim’s body to reduce connections between the death and themselves; or offered assistance to investigators and others to appear helpful and thus avoid suspicion. These types of DA tactics are documented in the literature, demonstrating the lengths offenders will go to for DA, as well as the calculated and instrumental nature of DA in IPF (Eke et al., 2011; Ferguson, 2021).

The qualitative findings suggest that abuse tactics commonly used in the relationship may also be used for DA, especially for isolating and discrediting the victim in life, and monitoring her prior to the homicide. These results complement of the work of Ferguson (2021) and Ferguson & McLachlan (2023), who suggest that tactics of coercive control extend post-IPF. The thematic analysis revealed that offenders use isolation of the victim and discrediting her reports of abuse to create time and space between themselves, the previous abuse, and the death. Stalking the victim physically or electronically served a similar purpose. It stopped victims reporting abuse and thus lowered the offender’s perceived risk to her in the death investigation; and it allowed offenders to locate victims, determine when they were vulnerable, and when best to avoid witnesses or interruptions to the fatal attack. This aligns with emerging research that suggests that online harms facilitated by technology are intrinsically linked to the perpetration of offline harms such as IPF (McLachlan & Harris, 2022).

How Are IPFs With DA Different?

DA offenders were more likely to have perpetrated their IPF in major cities than non-DA offenders. There is little research that examines the link between DA and rural spaces, though McLachlan (2023b) suggests that the natural isolation of rural spaces allows IPFs to be hidden without the offender having to engage in DA tactics. McLachlan (2023b) found that rural IPF offenders were less likely to plan the IPF and more likely to use firearms than their urban counterparts. By using the natural environment, rural IPF offenders may not consider being detected due to the potential physical distance from police or witnesses. The higher density of living in urban areas could make DA more necessary for IPF offenders who live in major cities, explaining the difference between DA and non-DA IPFs. DA offenders who perpetrated in urban areas most likely did so near others in their community, including police and other first responders. Such proximity increases the risk of the IPF being discovered quickly, and, from an offender’s perspective, may necessitate innocent explanations being created or time/space being made between victims and themselves through DA behaviors. Despite Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders often represented at a higher rate in rural areas, particularly remote and very remote regions, there was no demonstrated relationship between Indigenous status and DA. This finding warrants further examination through Indigenous-led research, considering the established socioethnic links that have been established elsewhere (Dayan, 2024).

Another difference between DA and non-DA offenders was known perpetration of IPV in previous relationships, where DA offenders had more known IPV perpetration despite rates being relatively low across both types of cases. This finding implies that offenders who use DA in an IPF do so because of a level of experience or expertise in similar forms of violence. Ferguson & Pooley (2019) found in their research of DA homicides that some IPH offenders who concealed the victim’s body had long histories of IPV perpetration. DA offenders with a history of IPV perpetration may have more experience being detected for IPV and are thus more motivated or experienced in avoiding detection when perpetrating the IPF.

Coercive control was present in the majority of relationships ending in both DA and non-DA IPFs, however DA offenders utilized these tactics more often. As discussed by scholars such as Eke (2007), Ferguson (2021) and Ferguson & McLachlan (2023) coercive control is an emerging factor in offender’s use of DA. DA offenders’ coercive controlling behaviors were common prior to the IPF, and were continued post-IPF through isolation, discrediting, and stalking. These findings highlight coercive control as a risk for IPF, but also suggest clear links between coercively controlling abusers and DA specifically. Such results lend credibility to emerging research suggesting that some offenders use DA so that they can continue control post-IPF, by drawing on innocent narratives and blaming the victim for their own death. In this scholarship, the same tactics of coercive control used in the relationship are used during and post-IPF, to manipulate and control witnesses, authorities, children, finances, the victim’s memory, and the death investigation. These behaviors exemplify that while a need for coercive control may lead to the IPF in the first place, this need is likely to continue afterward as well, perhaps changing form but drawing on the façade created by the DA tactics employed.

Along with higher rates of coercive control, physical and emotional violence by perpetrators were more often seen in DA IPFs than non-DA IPFs in the population examined. This finding may appear at odds with the act of offenders seeking to conceal their violence, however there are multiple explanations. It could be said that DA offenders who perpetrate more physical and emotional violence feel they must engage in more DA behaviors as their violence is visible and documented. It may be that these offenders are more experienced in the criminal justice system by virtue of this history and more practiced at manipulating it. Monckton-Smith et al. (2017) found IPV perpetrators regularly attempted to manipulate the system using DA tactics, to make the victim appear untrustworthy and avoid accountability. In this way, DA offenders may be evidencing more expertise than their non-DA counterparts. This is supported by the significant association between DA IPF and escalation of violence, particularly physical violence, prior to the IPF. This link between higher and escalated violence and DA IPF reflects Monckton Smith’s (2020) timeline of homicide, in which escalation is usually followed by an offender’s change in thinking, and then planning of the homicide. Additionally, it could be suggested that as the cases of DA IPF in this study have been detected, the additional investigative scrutiny involved (e.g., at the level required for a criminal prosecution) resulted in other violence being uncovered more than in those cases in which there was no DA, perhaps where offenders confessed immediately or suicided. Cases that have a clear perpetrator and do not result in a criminal trial or coronial inquest may contain undetected violence that would have been uncovered in other circumstances. DA offenders were significantly less likely to attempt or complete suicide after the IPF, which is an unsurprising finding, considering one of the motivations for detection avoidance is to avoid the consequences of perpetration (Beauregard et al., 2012). There is little research that explores the relationship between offender suicide and DA, however that which does suggests that those engaging in DA behaviors are unlikely to attempt or complete suicide, unless as part of a staged suicide pact, meaning often not a genuine attempt (McLachlan 2023a).

In this sample, DA IPFs were more likely to have an unknown cause of death than non-DA IPFs. This aligns with previous studies of DA, where offenders often attempt to manipulate evidence which would otherwise speak to cause of death, or where they plan the homicide around cause of death being equivocal (Ferguson, 2015; Ferguson & Sutherland, 2018). This might be done by using a cause of death that is hard to detect (such as asphyxiation), inflicting many injuries, delaying the victim’s body from being discovered, or burning the body to obscure injuries. Links between DA and unknown causes of death make two contributions to the literature—first, in cases involving DA, autopsy findings may not be useful for discriminating between the offender’s (false) narrative and the truth, meaning that investigations cannot rely on this type of evidence; and second, offenders may understand this and use it to their advantage. Indeed, other literature has suggested that difficulties proving the falsity of the offender’s version of events, such as through equivocal medical evidence, have led to DA strategies being successful (Ferguson & Pooley, 2019; Ferguson & McKinley, 2020). That is, when cause of death is not known offenders can continue self-defense, suicide pact, or accidental narratives to reduce charges or sentences, or they may continue to plead outright innocence and use that plea to continue controlling and intimidating the victim’s family, children or estate (Ferguson & McLachlan, 2023; Ferguson & Pooley, 2019; Ferguson & Sutherland, 2018).

Limitations

There were some limitations to consider for this research. The data provided by the DFVDRU had sometimes significant gaps regarding details of the case, the victim, and the offender. This was accounted for by utilizing an “unknown” category for most variables, as well as coding some variables as “not recorded” rather than absent. Some gaps in information were filled by other legitimate sources of information, such as news articles, however this was only done when the information could be corroborated by multiple sources. Missing data also indicated where consistent gaps in coronial data lie and provide insight into which variables are more difficult to ascertain during the police and coronial investigation. Another limitation of the study is that the DA cases examined are an under-estimation of the number of IPF cases with DA because those offenders who perpetrated IPF and used DA successfully are not included. These are the concealed and never revealed cases, that have escaped being recorded as IPFs. The rate of successful DA in IPF is unknown due to the nature of its outcome, which is the avoidance of detection. Without examining cold cases and missing persons, research that uses coronial data will only be able to examine DA cases that have been uncovered. This may also be true of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victims of IPF that fail to be recorded in official data because of structural and systemic racial bias toward a less than “ideal victim” (Cripps, 2023, p. 16). The current Senate Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women in Australia highlights the failings of official records in capturing the extent of lethal violence Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience, suggesting the rates of DA presented here are conservative.

Implications

The findings of this research have several implications. First, they offer a rate at which DA is being used by offenders in IPF cases—in this sample 43%. This frequency of DA is alarming given the scarcity of scholarship on how it is used and its impact on death investigations. There is similarly little practical guidance in the death and homicide investigation literature and training surrounding how DA tactics might be recognized by authorities. Such a paucity is concerning given the rates detected in this study. The findings of this research and others suggest that to combat DA efforts by offenders, they need to be recognized early in investigations so that manipulated evidence may be preserved, documented, and analyzed. Future work should focus on highlighting and disseminating to practitioners the rates at which DA might be expected in IPFs, as well the types of offender behaviors likely to be seen, including manipulating cause of death determinations, the use of coercive control tactics before during and after the IPF, offender expertise in the criminal justice system or dealing with police, and levels of effort that might be expended. Future research should further unpack the precise types of evidence that offenders are likely to manipulate in their DA efforts in IPF, when these occur, and their outcome. Further examination of how tactics of coercive control are used on investigators and witnesses are also necessary. With further robust research and dissemination to investigators, it is hoped that findings of this study will contribute to uncovering DA by IPF offenders, and eventually prevent the murder of women by their intimate partners.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Freya McLachlan

Claire Ferguson

Author Biographies

Freya McLachlan is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Griffith University. She completed her PhD on Intimate Partner Femicide at Queensland Univerisity of Technology

Claire Ferguson is an Associate Professor in the School of Justice at Queensland University of Technology. She is the author of Detection Avoidance in Homicide: Debates, Explanations, and Responses. Claire’s research focuses on manner of death determination and concealed homicide.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia, 2018. Victims of Family and Domestic Violence related offences (4510.0). https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2018~Main%20Features~Victims%20of%20Family%20and%20Domestic%20Violence%20related%20offences~6

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023, June). National, state and territory population. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release

Beauregard

Bouchard

(2010). Cleaning up your act: Forensic awareness as a detection avoidance strategy. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(6), 1160–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.004

Beauregard

Leclerc

Lussier

(2012). Decision making in the crime commission process: Comparing rapists, child molesters, and victim-crossover sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(10), 1275–1295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812453120

Bitton

Dayan

(2019). The perfect murder’: An exploratory study of staged murder scenes and concealed femicide. British Journal of Criminology, 59(5), 1054–1075. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz015

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bugeja

Butler

Buxton

Ehrat

Hayes

McIntyre

S.-J.

Walsh

(2013). The implementation of domestic violence death reviews in Australia. Homicide Studies, 17(4), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913494787

Bugeja

Dawson

McIntyre

S.-J.

Walsh

(2015). Domestic/family violence death reviews: An international comparison. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 16(2), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013517561

Cripps

(2023). Indigenous women and intimate partner homicide in Australia: confronting the impunity of policing failures. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 35(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2023.2205625

10.

Cripps

McGlade

(2008). Indigenous family violence and sexual abuse: Considering pathways forward. Journal of Family Studies, 14(2-3), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.327.14.2-3.240

11.

Cullen

Vaughan

Price

Sullivan

(2019). Counting dead women in Australia: An in-depth case review of femicide. Journal of Family Violence, 34(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-9963-6

12.

Dayan

(2024). Ethnocultural diversity in homicide crime scene staging. Homicide Studies, 28, 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679221082910

13.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

R. P.

(2015). When men murder women. Oxford University Press.

14.

Douglas

McGlade

Tarrant

Tolmie

(2020). Facts seen and unseen: improving justice responses by using a social entrapment lens for cases involving abused women (as offenders or victims). Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(4), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1829779

15.

Eke

A. W.

(2007). Staging in cases of homicide: Offender, victim and offence characteristics [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto].

16.

Eke

A. W.

Hilton

N. Z.

Harris

G. T.

Rice

M. E.

Houghton

R. E.

(2011). Intimate partner homicide: Risk assessment and prospects for prediction. Journal of Family Violence, 26(3), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9356-y

17.

Ferguson

(2015). Staged homicides: An examination of common features of faked burglaries, suicides, accidents and car accidents. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 30(3), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-014-9154-1

18.

Ferguson

(2018). Forensically aware offenders and homicide investigations: Challenges, opportunities and impacts. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(S1), S128–S131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2019.1569129

19.

Ferguson

(2021). Detection avoidance in homicides debates, explanations and responses. Routledge.

20.

Ferguson

McKinley

(2020). Detection avoidance and mis/unclassified, unsolved homicides in Australia. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 10(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-09-2019-0030

21.

Ferguson

McLachlan

(2023). Continuing coercive control after intimate partner femicide: The role of detection avoidance and concealment. Feminist Criminology. DOI: 10.1177/15570851231189531

22.

Ferguson

Pooley

(2019). Comparing solved and unsolved no-body homicides in Australia: An exploratory analysis. Homicide Studies, 23(4), 381-403.

23.

Ferguson

Sutherland

(2018). Murder by pushing: an exploratory analysis of homicidal falls from a height. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 39(3), 192–200.

24.

Fitz-Gibbon

Walklate

McCulloch

Maher

(2018). Intimate partner violence, risk and security: Securing women’s lives in a global world. Routledge.

25.

Harris

Woodlock

(2021). Digital coercive control and spatiality: Rural, regional, and remote women’s experience. Emerald.

26.

Harris

Woodlock

(2022). Spaceless violence: Women’s experiences of technology-facilitated domestic violence in regional, rural and remote areas [Report]. Australian Institute of Criminology.

27.

Johnson

Eriksson

Mazerolle

Wortley

(2019). Intimate femicide: The role of coercive control. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117701574

28.

McLachlan

(2023a). Intimate partner femicide: Risk factors and the heterogeneity of male-perpetrated IPF in Queensland. Queensland University of Technology.

29.

McLachlan

(2023b). The rurality of intimate partner femicide: examining risk factors in Queensland. Violence against women, https://doi.org/10778012231158105

30.

McLachlan

Harris

(2022). Intimate Risks: Examining Online and Offline Abuse, Homicide Flags, and Femicide. Victims & Offenders, 17(5), 623–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2036658

31.

Monckton Smith

. (2020). Intimate partner femicide: Using Foucauldian analysis to track an eight stage progression to homicide. Violence Against Women, 26(11), 1267–1285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219863876

32.

Monckton-Smith

Szymanska

Haile

(2017). Exploring the relationship between stalking and homicide. Suzy Lamplugh Trust.

33.

Oxley

(2020). Harry Blagg and Thalia Anthony (2019) decolonising criminology: Imagining justice in a postcolonial world. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy, 9(3), 180–182. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v9i3.1618

34.

Pence

Paymar

(1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. Springer Publishing Company.

35.

L. G.

Pettler

(Ed.). (2015). Crime scene staging dynamics in homicide cases (1st ed.). Taylor & Francis Group.

36.

Pierobom de Avila

(2018). The criminalisation of femicide. In Fitz-Gibbon

S. W. K.

McCulloch

Maher

J. M.

(Eds.), Intimate partner violence, risk and security: Securing women’s lives in a global world (pp. 181–198). Routledge.

37.

Queensland Courts. (2022, March 1). Review of deaths from domestic and family violence. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/coroners-court/review-of-deaths-from-domestic-and-family-violence

38.

Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board. (2019). Domestic and family violence death review and advisory board: 2018–19 annual report. Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board.

39.

Schlesinger

L. B.

Gardenier

Jarvis

Sheehan-Cook

(2014). Crime scene staging in homicide. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 29(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9114-6

40.

Stark

(2018). Coercive control as a framework for responding to male partner abuse in the UK: Opportunities and challenges. Taylor and Francis.

41.

Wangmann

(2021). Coercive control: Thinking beyond criminalisation. In Methven

E. C.

(Ed.), Coercive control: Thinking beyond criminalisation [Webinar]. Coercive control: Thinking beyond criminalisation. University of Technology Sydney.