Stalking is back on the legislative agenda after yet another high profile case.

At the end of last month, a convicted rapist was found guilty of actual bodily harm -- such was the psychological damage inflicted on the victim -- and assault after subjecting the woman to 200 incidents of harassment, including twice threatening her with a blade-edged wallpaper scraper.The judge, Gerald Butler, called for the immediate introduction of a new law that would make stalking a criminal offence.

But Home Secretary Michael Howard rejected precipitous action, saying that it would not be in the public's interest to have a 'rushed law'.

Mr Howard did express hope that legislation would be in force by the next election.Last July, the government released a consultation paper (see left) in which ministers acknowledged that the greatest difficulty in extending the criminal law in this area is one of definition.The paper does not define stalking, although the introduction refers to 'a series of acts that are intended to, or in fact, cause harassment to another person'.

By recommending a tort of molestation, the government appears to be relying on a concept, undefined in legislation but developed by case law, that has sprung from domestic violence cases.

The Law Society, in its response, warned that this would leave victims not knowing whether their cases fell within the definition until they reached court.The major stumbling block is in defining stalking in such a way that it would not encompass perfectly legitimate activities.

The consultation paper cautions that any new law should not catch investigative journalists, religious activists, debt collectors or even political canvassers and suggests that an element of persistence is essential.However, one proposal in the paper says that liability would arise where the stalker 'realised or should have realised that his conduct was likely to cause a plaintiff distress or harassment'.

The Society believes that this is too widely drawn.Darryl Bickler from the newly formed group Freedom and Law, which has brought together lawyers who maintain there is too much law, says there is already considerable existing legislation on physical assault, damage to property and malicious communications.

Mr Bickler argues that a new law along the lines of the consultation paper would be problematic because it would also seek to remove the need to prove intention to stalk and rely on t he victim's belief.'It will rely on individual susceptibility to the attentions of the accused,' he says.

'When such common standards are lost we all suffer a loss of legal rights because innocence and guilt cannot readily be established objectively.' By taking behaviour that is currently seen as unintentional and innocuous and saying it is harassment, he argues that a law would lead to legalised standards of courtship.Support for this position came last week from Lord Bingham, the new Lord Chief Justice.

Speaking at his first press conference as LCJ, he said 'the law does already provide considerable protection'.However, most interested parties support a new law, and lawyers seem to favour a criminal, rather than civil, solution.

The government sees a role for both.

Stephen Wedd, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, describes the government's proposals as 'a mishmash of bolting new criminal sanctions onto old civil remedies'.If stalking is a criminal offence, Mr Wedd says, it would be for the police to investigate and prosecute the offender.

That would make it easier for the victim emotionally -- because he or she would not have to take proceedings personally -- and financially -- because he or she would avoid the difficulties of obtaining legal aid.

At the moment, as there are also civil remedies available, the police are reluctant to intervene.Robert Roscoe, chairman of the Law Society's criminal law committee and president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, suggests permitting the magistrates' courts to hear the equivalent of an ex parte injunction.

But he recognises that the alleged stalker would need representation, again confronting the problem of legal aid.Stalking is an issue that is as large as it is complex.

If nothing else, media interest -- and tabloid sensationalism -- should ensure that it stays near the top of Mr Howard's crowded agenda.

But that is as far as anyone can predict.

That stalking is, as Mr Wedd says, 'a minefield' is one of the few aspects of the issue that is not in question.GOVERNMENT PROPOSALSThe government proposes:-- A new tort of molestation.

It would be unlawful to molest a person so as to cause them distress where the defendant intended to cause distress or where he realised, or ought to have realised, that his conduct was likely to cause distress.

Breach of a restraining order would be punishable by up to five years' imprisonment.-- It would be a criminal offence persistently to use words or behaviour that either intentionally led a person to believe, or which occurred in circumstances where a reasonable person should have realised that a person would believe, that violence would be used against him or her or that he or she was likely to believe that violence would be used.

This would be punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.-- It would be a criminal offence persistently to use words or behaviour that intentionally caused a person to be harassed, alarmed or distressed, or which occurred in circumstances where a reasonable person should have realised that this would be the effect.

This would be punishable by up to six months' imprisonment and/or a fine.-- It would be a defence for a person to show that he was acting reasonably in the course of his profession, trade, business or other lawful activity.