Domestic Abuse Bill — Defence for Victims of Domestic Abuse who Commit an Offence — 15 Apr 2021 at 15:45

The majority of MPs voted against a new defence for victims of domestic abuse who have been coerced into committing a crime as a result of them being a victim of domestic abuse.

MPs were considering the Domestic Abuse Bill.[1][2]

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 36

Lords amendment 38[3] began:

  • "Insert the following new Clause—
  • Defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence
  • (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
  • (a) the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
  • (b) the person does that act because the person is compelled to do it,
  • (c) the compulsion is attributable to their being a victim of domestic abuse, and
  • (d) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing that act

The explanatory notes to the Lords amendments[4] stated :

  • "Lords Amendment 38 would provide for a new statutory defence for victims of domestic abuse who may have been coerced, or committed a crime, as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse. However, this provision does not apply to the offences listed in the new Schedule inserted by Lords Amendment 83, referenced in subsection (7) of the new clause.
  • Subsection (1) of the new clause would provide that a person, aged 18 or over at the time of the act which constitutes an offence (i.e. not one listed in the new Schedule introduced by Lords Amendment 83), is not guilty of that offence if they commit the offence because they were compelled to do so; they were compelled as a result of other factors, for example, such as exploitation, and a reasonable person with the relevant characteristics in the same position as that person, would have no realistic alternative but to do the same act"

The schedule proposed via Lords amendment 83[3][4] listed exemptions starting with:

  • False imprisonment, Kidnapping, Manslaughter, Murder, Perverting the course of justice and Piracy.


Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con352 (+2 tell) 0097.3%
DUP8 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 40100.0%
Lab0 195 (+2 tell)099.0%
LDem0 110100.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 20100.0%
Total:360 217098.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive