It was positive to learn of the major independent review of stalking laws launched in October. Stalking is a crime that is undeniably on the rise. At best, it is profoundly damaging to a victim’s mental health; at worst, it presents a very real and imminent threat to life. A comprehensive review is overdue. Yet while it takes place, questions remain about whether the current legal framework adequately protects victims, holds perpetrators to account and works effectively alongside existing harassment laws. 

Amelia Davey

Amelia Davey

Legal options: difficult to navigate

At present, victims have three main legal avenues:

  • Stalking protection order (criminal);
  • Protection from harassment (civil); and
  • Non-molestation order (family).

For family law clients, the non-molestation order is often the only available route. But this is limited: it can only be made against an ‘associated person’, a definition that includes partners, relatives and certain connected individuals. But it excludes many people victims may fear, such as housemates, colleagues or acquaintances. Even when a person is eligible, obtaining an order is far from straightforward. Victims often need a lawyer, rely on legal aid (if eligible), or attempt to represent themselves – a daunting prospect when they are already frightened and vulnerable.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 sets out stalking as a criminal offence. Victims can report behaviour to the police and pursue charges, or alternatively take civil action to seek an injunction or damages. In civil proceedings, the onus is on the victim to initiate the process, yet again placing responsibility on someone already experiencing distress.

In contrast, a stalking protection order (SPO) is available regardless of the relationship between the parties and must be applied for by the police, not the victim. On the face of it, this makes SPOs a far more practical and protective tool. They should reduce the burden on victims and provide early intervention before behaviour escalates. 

Yet despite their apparent strengths, the SPO remains severely underused. As a family lawyer, I regularly speak to clients who fear they are being stalked – but not a single one has ever been granted an SPO since their introduction in 2019. Whether police are not suggesting them, believe criteria are not met, or are encouraging victims to seek civil remedies instead remains unclear. What is apparent is that an important mechanism is not reaching the people it was designed to protect. 

Are current laws working as intended?

The review seeks to explore whether existing stalking laws work effectively alongside harassment legislation. The reality on the ground suggests many shortcomings.

A worrying pattern is the apparent reluctance of some police forces to treat stalking, particularly by current or former partners, with the seriousness it demands. Victims report feeling dismissed or directed to seek legal advice rather than supported through a police-led protective process. Telling a victim that their best option is to pay for legal representation, or wait to learn if they are eligible for legal aid, may result in them doing nothing at all, leaving them in significant danger.

This is at odds with the response to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust’s 2022 super-complaint, following which the National Police Chiefs’ Council stated that most forces now monitor and audit SPOs to ensure prompt enforcement. Monitoring is of little value, however, if the orders are rarely used in the first place.

Technology also complicates matters. Stalkers increasingly exploit digital devices, geolocation tools and social media to track, harass or impersonate victims. While new police recruits reportedly receive training on cyberstalking, there is limited information on how existing officers are being upskilled. Victims often suspect online stalking but lack the tools to investigate it themselves. Police support is essential, yet not always forthcoming. 

What should the review address?

The review’s proposed focus of examining how well laws protect victims and hold perpetrators accountable is welcome, but it must be ambitious. Several issues urgently require attention:

  • A statutory definition of stalking. Clearer legal parameters would reduce inconsistency, aid police understanding and improve victim confidence. 
  • Greater emphasis on early intervention. SPOs were designed to prevent escalation. Their limited use should be investigated and rectified. 
  • Improved police training and specialist teams. Dedicated stalker-focused units or named officers with expertise could transform victim experiences.
  • Better integration with harassment laws. Overlaps between civil and criminal routes create confusion. Victims need a unified, accessible framework.
  • Support and rehabilitation for perpetrators. Many stalkers are serial offenders. Short custodial sentences, on average 13 to 14 months, do little to prevent reoffending without accompanying mental health or behavioural interventions.
  • Prison and court capacity. With conviction rates reportedly as low as 1.4%, improving accountability requires significant investment.

Will the review help halve violence against women and girls?

The government’s goal of halving violence against women and girls within a decade is laudable, but the impact of the stalking review will hinge on resources and implementation. Legislation alone will not drive change unless police forces, courts and support services receive the funding and training needed to enforce it. Stalking is often a precursor to serious violence; intervening early is critical if the government’s target is to be met. Without meaningful investment, ‘progress’ risks being limited to rhetoric rather than reality.

 

Amelia Davey is director at The Family Law Company, Plymouth

Topics