Penny Jackson
Many women find being the victim of domestic abuse shameful and such abuse often goes unreported with the victim being afraid to tell even close relatives what is happening to her. Penny Jackson was no exception.
In 2021 Penny was convicted of the murder of David her husband of nearly 25 years and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years.
Penny was nearly 66 when she killed David in February 2021. To many people, it seemed that Penny and David Jackson were living the perfect life. They enjoyed going on cruises and seemed to have a contented retirement, and yet Penny was the victim of long- standing domestic abuse.
Years before the killing, David had held a knife to Penny’s throat and headbutted her. He did this in front of his family. Penny was always afraid of a repeat of this violence. In later years, Penny suffered routine strangulation if she did not do what David expected of her, she was regularly shaken and called a “thing” she would be criticised and told that she could not do anything right, food that she had cooked would be thrown on the floor. Penny nursed David through a number of serious illnesses and covered up the abuse because she was ashamed.
People were quick to assume that someone in Penny’s position could not be the victim of coercive control.
When Penny killed David, during lockdown, she did her best to describe how she had been a victim of coercive control, she had felt that was the only way out but her presentation was not what society expects of a victim, she did not cry or cower in a corner, she fully admitted what she had done, and tried to describe the sense of entrapment she felt. Her actions were a ‘final straw’ response to the years of jealousy, isolation, abuse, violence, contempt and being belittled which Penny could no longer pretend was not happening and yet the focus of the prosecution was on the immediate events on the day of the killing rather than on the years of coercive control. Coercive Control often involves few incidents of extreme violence. It is a strategy of behaviour designed to make a victim dependent and deprive her of the resources to leave her abuser. Extreme violence only needs to happen once for it to have the effect desired by the abuser.
The police had taken statements from some who had witnessed David’s violence towards Penny years earlier as well as statements describing the behaviour of David which could be characterised as controlling but at trial, the prosecution would not call or tender the witnesses for the defence to cross-examine.
Penny maintained that she would know when she was going to be assaulted and become afraid because David’s eyes would change as a warning. During cross-examination about events leading up to the only occasion when she found the courage to call the police she was asked “why would you do anything that risked him going like that?”
Penny relied on the partial defence of loss of control which, if successful, reduces murder to manslaughter. Even though this is a defence which was intended to avail women who have suffered years of abuse and then kill their abuser, there is still no real understanding of what amounts to a “loss of self- control.” Because Penny had admitted what she had done and not tried to conceal it, it was said that this could not be a loss of control and that she was too calm. It is now time the law fully recognises the mechanism and effect of coercive control on women.