Anthony Burstow has just been sentenced to three years' imprisonment for causing psychological grievous bodily harm to Tracy Sant.

The decision by Reading Crown Court was hailed by the tabloid press as 'a great victory in the campaign against stalkers'.The most significant aspect of the Burstow decision was that he pleaded guilty and did not seek to challenge the charge of psychological GBH as a matter of law.

This is a shame.

There is clearly a wide chasm between harassing a victim and causing grievous bodily harm when the campaign is non-physical in nature.

Whilst this is undoubtedly a milestone conviction it cannot yet be regarded as settled law that defendants who perpetrate protracted campaigns of harassment and intimidation are guilty of the offence of psychological GBH.

The conviction of Mr Burstow contrasts with the failure, also last week, of the prosecution against Charles Wilson who is alleged to have been plaguing Charlotte Sell for over two years.

The stipendiary magistrate at Horseferry Road made a finding that his behaviour had not amounted to a criminal offence.The conviction rate against those accused of stalking is poor and the press alleges that the law is inadequate.

However, very little serious attention has been given to either the present criminal or civil law.

The most serious attempt to deal with stalking in criminal law is contained in s.154 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994.

In order to ground a conviction under this section, the prosecution must prove an intention to harass, a course of behaviour which is objectively threatening and that such behaviour actually causes harassment, alarm or distress to the victim.

It is a high burden of proof and only covers behaviour which ultimately can be construed as aggressive.

It does not deal with the passive stalker who neither commits assault nor trespass.

It is often forgotten that there is already legislation to deal with malicious telephone calls (s.43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984) and obscene letters or parcels (s.1(1) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988).It is my opinion that the tort of harassment now exists in civil law.

My authority is the Court of Appeal decision in Burris v Azadani [1995] The Times, 9 August.

This case was principally concerned with enforcing an exclusion zone order at common law, something which the 1995 Green Book says cannot happen (see CCR 1981 ord 13, p.237 of the County Court Practice 1995 (Butterworths)).

Mr Azadani unsuccessfully challenged the validity of exclusion zone orders at common law in the Court of Appeal.

Throughout his judgment Sir Thomas Bingham MR uses the words 'legitimate interests' and it is my opinion that, in his definition, legitimate interests are far more widely defined than interests which are capable of being protected under a tort.The Burris decision follows the 1993 decision of the Court of Appeal in Khorasandjian v Bush which can probably be construed as one of the first formal decisions in which the tort of harassment emerged.

However, in his dissenting judgment, Peter Gibson J, now LJ, said that he did not consider the tort of harassment or pestering existed.

In my opinion the Burris case is authority for the proposition that the civil courts will grant victims relief if they are subject to a persistent course of behaviour which causes them distress, even though the campaign is a peaceful one.

The relief sought will invariably be injunctive.

A claim for injunctive relief can be mounted under the tort of harassment.

The Master of the Rolls made it clear in Burris that courts will consider such cases on a balance of interests test and will balance the right of the victim not to be harassed against the right of the stalker to freedom of movement.

If this crucial test is satisfied it is submitted that the burden of proving harassment is relatively low.

One difficulty in the civil law, which must be remedied by statute, is that there is no power of arrest for breaching a common law injunction.Following the judgment in the Burstow case, the Labour MP Janet Anderson has presented a private member's Bill to the House of Commons aimed at bringing in new criminal legislation.

This Bill proposes that persistent stalking should be a criminal offence and that its definition should include repeatedly telephoning a person and then hanging up, and sending threatening letters.

The proposed offence of hang-up telephone calls could be dealt with by amending the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the offence of sending threatening letters by amending the terms of s.1(1) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

However, very careful consideration should be given to the definition of persistent stalking.

The draftsman would have to have careful regard to the criminal burden of proof and the fact that very few prosecutions have been mounted under S.154 of the CJA 1994 despite the existence of the offence of criminal harassment.Consideration would also have to be given to the legitimate activities of journalists who pursue celebrities and to neighbourhood disputes.

Angry neighbours could misuse the Act by alleging that they have been followed to the railway station every day by a neighbour who catches the same train.In my opinion, the most effective way to deal with stalkers is to obtain a civil injunction under the tort of harassment.

The burden of proof is relatively low and injunctive relief is readily available under the balance of interests test in Burris.

The real difficulty with the civil route is funding.

However, obtaining an injunction should not necessarily be expensive.

I believe that a competent solicitor armed with a chronology of events, a police report and a medical report -- all of which can merely be exhibited to the plaintiff's affidavit in support -- should be able to obtain an ex-parte injunction for not much more than £1000 plus VAT.

Most stalkers do not challenge ex-parte injunctions and therefore practitioners are left to police the court orders with contempt proceedings which can be streamlined and can cost in the region of £500 plus VAT for each hearing.

Therefore, a victim can obtain a finding of contempt for the sum of less than £2000 plus VAT.