Without the help of the Daily Mirror's campaign, Labour MP Janet Anderson's private member's Bill against stalking -- a misleading tabloid term for harassment or molestation -- might have been laid to rest in an unmarked grave.The Bill sought to render unlawful behaviour constituting shadowing another person, constant telephone calls, interference with property and the leaving of offensive material.

It said such behaviour must be persistent, it must constitute a course of conduct over a reasonable period of time and amount to harassment or molestation.

It clearly deals with behaviour such as smearing blood on someone's window, leaving dead birds on their car, or putting bottles under their tyres.Three defence tests were laid down:-- Is this behaviour reasonably likely to cause distress or worse to the alleged victim? (an objective test)-- Did the defendant know or ought he to have known that his behaviour was likely to cause distress or worse? (a subjective test)-- Was he acting under and within lawful authority?These defences would enable the criminal courts to exercise judicial discretion in determining whether a course of behaviour was unlawful.

The tests were drafted to protect journalists vigorously pursuing a story or policemen observing an alleged criminal.The Bill also sought to introduce the equivalent of the civil injunction into the criminal jurisdiction.

Magistrates' courts would be empowered to make prohibitory orders against respondents on the civil burden of proof ('balance of probability') without making formal criminal findings.This would enable courts to adopt the civil tests laid down by the Court of Appeal in Burris v Azadani [1995] The Times, 9 August, which formally recognised the tort of harassment, and to have regard to the legitimate interests of the complainant and balance such interests against those of the respondent.

In effect, the Court of Appeal laid down a common-sense approach to the determination of harassment or molestation cases, or to stalking if we use tabloid terminology.The definition of stalking in the Bill is based upon a study of anti-stalking laws passed in other common law jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada and the USA.

The prohibitory orders follow closely and dicta laid down by the Court of Appeal in Burris v Azadani.The Bill has been widely distributed for consultation and suggested amendments over the last four weeks.

The government initially announced that the Bill was flawed, but did not give reasons.

It then said that the Bill was 'too widely drafted', but again failed to give reasons.

Advising Mrs Anderson on the government's likely stance was like drafting a reply to defence in anticipation of service.

At the 11th hour, the government -- in the shape of David Maclean -- announced that the Bill would render unlawful behaviour which would ordinarily be lawful.

Therefore, the government refused to support the Bill, which will not now go to committee despite the fact that many Bills emerge from this parliamentary stage in a substantially different form.During the course of the media debate, it became clear that the government was not prepared to give courts the discretion they need to deal with stalkers.

This would involve judicial consideration of whether behaviour was, objectively, likely to cause distress or fear to a victim.

This raises constitutional issues concerning the making and enforcement of law in this country as, prior to this, the role of the courts has been to interpret statutory law passed by Parliament to deal with important social issues.