Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone is in the news for examining proposals to make the specific offence of stalking a criminal offence. The Independent reports:
Stalkers are to face jail under government plans to create a new criminal offence after prosecutors admitted it was hard to bring cases to court.
Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat Home Office minister, on a visit to Manchester, [is today to] unveil proposals to introduce a specific offence of stalking, potentially also covering cyber-stalking. A three-month consultation will also look at the use of restraining orders and police attitudes to stalking cases, following concern that the treatment of allegations differs between forces.
Every year, up to 5 million people suffer incidents of stalking or harassment in some form, research suggests. Only one in 50 incidents of harassment reported to police result in a prison sentence. At present, people accused of stalking are prosecuted under other offences, frequently harassment or breach of the peace. A government source said: “Most people will be surprised this is not a criminal offence already and would think it is right that it becomes one. The Government will look at how best to do that.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
8 Comments
Actually, I don’t see the difference between online stalking and harassment. That’s all it is.
In person stalking is another matter as it’s more than an annoyance that can be avoided with some effort (as you can online) but a physical threat almost impossible to escape (changing home and job is not as easy as changing email address and facebook account!).
So separate offence for physical stalking yes, but online? I don’t see the point.
As someone who has been stalked, attacked and harassed, this needs to be addressed quickly. As Sandra has pointed out, online harassment is easier to avoid, when it’s up close and personal it effects your family, your job and your trust in people.
Under recent changes to the law, the person harassing you has to be given 2 warnings until they are made to sign an order, if they break the order, they are then charged. If they dispute the charge, the victim is then made to attend court. When you have gone through months of harassment, your confidence is low and you actually feel as though you are responsible for the harassment. If the crown prosecution feel they will not win, they will drop the case.
New laws are needed to protect victims and their families and to deter anyone from stalking.
Although my natural thought is we should enforce the laws we have rather than create a new one, there does appear to be an issue in making harassment laws stick.
Those drafting the law must be careful not to criminalise normal human behaviour – many if not most people check out other people by looking at their profiles or reading their updates, in one definition that is stalking, so is a being a private investigator as an occupation, a journalist doing research or a police stake out. So there needs to be a test of harm being caused, that can be physical or mental.
Define stalking first.
The consultation paper is here.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/stalking-consultation/
I can’t reconcile this quote in the above article:
“A government source said: “Most people will be surprised this is not a criminal offence already and would think it is right that it becomes one. The Government will look at how best to do that.”
With what it says in that consultation document
“Stalking charities, campaigners, some police officers and some MPs feel strongly that, although stalking and cyber stalking behaviour is included within the definition of harassment under the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997 (PHA), because these terms are not mentioned specifically the police do not always realise that the Act can be used to tackle stalking and fail to take the appropriate action to deal with it.”
The consultation doc says stalking is defined in the British Crime Survey as:
“Stalking: two or more incidents causing distress, fear or alarm of obscene/ threatening unwanted letters or phone calls, waiting or loitering around home or workplace, following or watching, or interfering with or damaging personal property carried out by any person.”
That seems narrower than the definition in the Protection from Harrassment Act of a course of conduct which a reasonable person would consider amounted to harrassment.
>
“Stalking charities, campaigners, some police officers and some MPs feel strongly that, although stalking and cyber stalking behaviour is included within the definition of harassment under the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997 (PHA), because these terms are not mentioned specifically the police do not always realise that the Act can be used to tackle stalking and fail to take the appropriate action to deal with it.
That’s not a case for new legislation; that’s a case for ACPO issuing a CoP or the Home Office publishing Guidance.
Having seen the breadth of the definitions in the Scottish legislation – clipped in below – this strikes me as rampant legislativitis through playing to a lobby. Reading someone’s blog or writing a critical article could be construed as stalking.
No.
”
(6) In this section— “conduct” means—
(a) following B or any other person,
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, B or
any other person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material—
(c)(i)relating or purporting to relate to B or
to any other person,
(ii) purporting to originate from B or from
any other person,
(d) monitoring the use by B or by any other
person of the internet, email or any other
form of electronic communication,
(e) entering any premises,
(f) loitering in any place (whether public or
private),
(g) interfering with any property in the
possession of B or of any other person,
(h) giving anything to B or to any other person
or leaving anything where it may be found
by, given to or brought to the attention of B
or any other person,
(i) watching or spying on B or any other person,
(j) acting in any other way that a reasonable
person would expect would cause B to suffer
fear or alarm, and “course of conduct”
involves conduct on at least two occasions”
Good point. I would go further to say that I would like to see the law drawn up in such a way as to not criminalise those who are simply different, and whose behaviour is interpreted negatively through prejudice, rather than those who are genuinely causing distress.
I don’t think that such care need bog down the creation of this new law, nor hamper the effectiveness that is so needed.