The term ‘gaslighting’ has been used in a published High Court judgment in the family courts for the first time ever, in a move that has been described as a “milestone” moment.

A form of emotional abuse in which the perpetrator manipulates their target into questioning their judgements or reality, gaslighting can take a massive toll on a victim’s mental health.

However, while gaslighting is technically illegal under current laws against coercive or controlling behaviour, the judge’s use of the term in his judgment gives it legal credibility. 

Commenting on the significance of the moment, Julian Hawkhead, senior partner at Stowe Family Law, tells Stylist: “The [use of the term] means that in future cases there is a legitimate label for this kind of behaviour and victims can use this term in court proceedings to explain their experiences of domestic abuse.

“For the phrase to be referenced in a reported case means that it has judicial recognition, elevating it from a phrase that can often be thrown around with little meaning or acknowledgement of the devastating effect it can have on the victim.” 

Hawkhead continues: “When a High Court judge uses a term like ‘gaslighting’ it opens the door for other judges to use that term more routinely, and might legitimise its use more widely amongst other public bodies such as the police and social services. Crucially, victims of this kind of abuse now have a label for what they have suffered that will be more widely accepted, recognised and adopted.” 

The case in question – which unfolded in the final months of last year – saw a woman accuse her partner of rape and domestic abuse. However, during her first court appearance, she was told her child could be removed from her if she continued her allegations.

Her lawyer – the leading human rights lawyer Dr Charlotte Proudman – then took her case to the court of appeal. Dr Proudman argued that her client had been the victim of gaslighting – the judge also found that the woman’s partner had raped, abused and controlled her.

“He convinced her that she had bipolar, he told her repeatedly, he even convinced her family and other professionals,” Proudman told The Independent. “She didn’t have bipolar. This is a form of insidious and corrosive abuse when women are made to question their own version of reality because of abusive men. What made it worse is that he is a mental health care worker.” 

In his ruling, Mr Justice Stephen Cobb – the High Court judge who ruled on the case and also helped to write the law and guidance on how the family courts tackle domestic abuse – said Dr Proudman’s use of the term ‘gaslighting’ was “apposite”.

“The father’s [partner’s] conduct represented a form of insidious abuse designed to cause the mother [the woman Dr Proudman represented] to question her own mental wellbeing, indeed her sanity,” Justice Cobb wrote.

“The assertion to the mother [the woman Dr Proudman represented] and others were ostensibly given greater credibility by the fact that at the time the father [partner] was a mental health nurse; he may be thought (and doubtless wanted to be thought) to have drawn on specialist expertise or experience to make his diagnosis/assertion.” 

Images: Getty