Fiona Beal trial: Victim responses to coercive control may be ‘confusing’ and ‘not make sense’, expert tells court

The trial of a former Northampton primary school teacher accused of murdering her partner began again today (June 6) after a two-week break.

Fiona Beal, aged 49, of Moore Street, stands accused of murdering 42-year-old Nicholas Billingham in November 2021 and burying his body in their garden.

The former Eastfield Academy teacher was charged with Mr Billingham’s murder in March 2022, after she tried to take her life in a holiday lodge in Cumbria and police uncovered two journals that detailed carrying out a plan to kill someone.

While Beal admits to the unlawful killing, she denies murder due to her mental state at the time. She claims she was in a “coercive” relationship with Mr Billingham, which left her “broken”.

Before today (June 6) Beal last appeared at Northampton Crown Court on Monday, May 22 when a forensic psychologist gave evidence about her mental state after she fatally stabbed Mr Billingham on November 1, 2021.

Dr John Cordwell told the jury he believes that Beal suffers from ongoing and severe depression and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) – partially because of Mr Billingham’s conduct towards her throughout their 17-year relationship.

This morning (June 6), the court heard from Professor Jane Monkton-Smith – who obtained a PHD from Cardiff University in 2006 and is now a professor of public protection at the University of Gloucestershire.

Her work specialises in homicide, coercive control and stalking and she has an “international reputation” in the field.

The professor put together a report as evidence for the trial, and began by confirming “coercive control is now widely accepted as part of the court process” when Andrew Wheeler KC, defending Beal, started to question her before the jury.

Professor Monkton-Smith replied “absolutely it is” when asked about the importance of addressing preconceived ideas of coercive control, the nature of the patterns of behaviour, and victim responses.

She described coercive control as a “new way of talking about domestic abuse”, which is why work has been carried out to make it “more understandable and simple”.

Professor Monkton-Smith went on to say a victim’s response to coercive control may appear “confusing” and “not make sense”, the court heard.

She also said ‘why don’t they just leave’ is commonly asked about victims of coercive control, which is why she then laid out a number of myths about victims before the jury.

Two of these included “victims cannot be truthful” and “the abuse cannot be that bad if the victim doesn’t leave”.

The jury heard Professor Monkton-Smith label coercive control as a “pattern of behaviour” – one that occurs “mainly behind closed doors” and “people don’t witness the patterns, even friends and family”.

“It is very rare that the whole story is known,” said Professor Monkton-Smith. “People might have suspicions or they may not know at all.”

When asked by the defence, Mr Wheeler, if coercive control influences accurately recalling events, the professor replied: “Living with coercive control can interfere with memory and recognition about what might be happening in the relationship.”

The court heard an overview of what coercive control is from the report, defined as a “broad range of controlling tactics” that aim to “subjugate the victim and keep them compliant”.

“The pattern is not intermittent,” said Professor Monkton-Smith. “It is relentless and constant, but the seriousness of what is happening goes up and down.”

In general terms, the professor provided examples of coercive behaviour as low level violence, sexual violence, aggression, financial control, and psychological manipulation.

“Victims will be compliant with most of the things they are required to do,” the court heard from Professor Monkton-Smith.

She went on to add: “The best way to describe [coercive control] is a hostage situation. It is trapping somebody.”

The professor confirmed, when questioned by the defence, that control tactics that have been used in the past make the victim “afraid to challenge” and what they have experienced affects their decision making in the future.

“If a pattern [of coercive control] changes it can be an indication of danger,” Professor Monkton-Smith told the jury, while also reiterating that control tactics differ depending on the person and the relationship.

The professor was questioned about the two types of fear caused by coercive control, outlined in the report – immediate and chronic fear.

The jury heard: “That [chronic fear] might make victims behave in ways that we don’t understand or ways that look illogical to us.”

“[Tactics] establish, reestablish or maintain the control,” said Professor Monkton-Smith. “[Victims] comply with the demands of the controlling person and avoid the consequences of upsetting that person.”

Addressing the court about resisting coercive control, the professor said: “Things can get dangerous very quickly.”

When questioned by the defence, Professor Monkton-Smith confirmed “mental ill health”, including depression and PTSD, and “alcohol or drug misuse” can be side effects of coercive control.

Though the court heard victims of coercion are at risk of “serious harm”, as well as their family members and those associated with them, the professor said “the controlling person and perpetrator may be harmed when the victim retaliates”.

As the questioning from Mr Wheeler, defending, came to an end, he asked Professor Monkton-Smith if coercive control can be assessed by looking at isolated incidents and the jury heard: “You have got to look at the whole picture.”

The prosecution barrister, Steven Perian KC, then began his questioning of the academic professional before the court.

In his shorter questioning when compared to the defence, Mr Perian asked Professor Monkton-Smith if it was possible for both the man and woman in a relationship to be the “controllers” – to which she agreed.

Mr Perian proceeded by asking if it is important to consider what a coercive individual has been like in previous relationships, as he asked if behaviours will “repeat themselves”.

Professor Monkton-Smith told the court “different tactics [occur] in different relationships” and when the prosecution asked her if being coercive is “part of a person’s personality”, she replied: “I guess so.”

Before the evidence was concluded for the day, Mr Perian ended by referring back to the definition of coercive control in the report.

He asked Professor Monkton-Smith if it is “more often the victim [of coercive control] who is killed”, to which she agreed before the court.

The trial continues.