©Copyright Legal Women Limited 2025

Sponsorship -  Email - Advertise

Legal Women Magazine, Benham Publishing Limited, Aintree Building, Aintree Way, Aintree Business Park Liverpool L9 5AQ

HOME      FOUNDER      INTERVIEWS      BLOGS      COMMUNITIES      EVENTS      RESOURCES      LW TEAM      SUBSCRIBE

Stalking: Legal Framework and Practical Challenges

By Nicola Smith-DWF, and Rowena Winsiewska; 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square















Part 2 – Types of Stalking and Identifying Motivation

In Part 1 of our series of articles on Stalking Protection Orders we looked at the legal framework and practical challenges, focusing in particular on hearsay evidence.


In Part 2 we focus on types of stalking behaviour, the relative motivations behind them, as well as the test applied by the court, for granting an order.


There is no specific legal definition of stalking. However, the police and CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) have adopted the following description: “a pattern of unwanted, fixated and obsessive behaviour which is intrusive. It can include harassment that amounts to stalking or stalking that causes fear of violence or serious alarm or distress in the victim.” UK policing adopts the FOUR mnemonic – in simple terms they are looking for behaviour that is Fixed, Obsessive, Unwanted, Repeated.


Just as there is no specific Legal Definition of Stalking, equally there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ Stalking Perpetrator.


Recognised Types Of Stalkers

The relationship between the perpetrator and the victim can vary significantly from complete strangers (including celebrities), through to ex-partners or former co-workers. In the case of ex-partners, stalking behaviour might include carrying out a campaign of economic abuse - for example, seeking to control access to money, employment or food.

In some cases, the perpetrator’s behaviour may appear ‘harmless’ and may in itself appear lawful, particularly if considered in isolation rather than as part of a concerted pattern of behaviour. However, these behaviours may amount to stalking depending on the context of the behaviour, the motivations driving the behaviour and the impact on the victim. With reference to section 1(4)(b) of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 (‘the 2019 Act’) a risk associated with stalking may arise from acts which the defendant knows, or ought to know, are unwelcome to the other person, even if in other circumstances the acts would appear harmless in themselves. Accordingly, context and an objective view of the behaviour (what the defendant ‘ought’ to have known) is an important part of the assessment to be made when the Police make an application for an order.


There are five categories widely used to identify the ‘type’ of stalker. Each type presents with its own motivation and  level of risk to a victim:


• Rejected Stalker:  following the breakdown of a close (often intimate) relationship. The motivation can often flit between wanting to reconcile or to punish.

• Intimacy-Seeking:  often strangers or passing acquaintance that they are seeking to build a close relationship with.

• Incompetent Suitor: desire for a date or short-term liaison and will simply disgard usual social boundaries to try and facilitate.

• Resentful: occurs when they believe the victim has mistreated or humiliated them and they seek to frighten, intimate or exact revenge.

• Predatory: Will stalk a victim as part of a sexual motive / sexual gratification. This stalking is often covert and is usually done in preparation for an assault, or other harmful act. This is the highest risk category of stalker.


Stalking Behaviour

With regard to behaviour which may constitute acts of stalking, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (‘the 1997 Act’) provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of ‘acts or omissions associated with stalking’. These include:

The 1997 Act sets out other examples of behaviours which may amount to stalking depending on the motivation underpinning the behaviour and the context. Such behaviour could include contacting the victim’s children, partner, other family members, or co-workers. This is known as ‘stalking by proxy’ which effectively means stalking people connected to the ‘primary’ victim. Other behaviours listed in the 1997 Act include: sending unsolicited gifts or other items to the victim; impersonating the victim in order to gather information about them; cancelling or procuring goods or services to the victim; joining the same gym, church, medical practice, educational course or workplace as the victim; publishing or threatening to publish personal information or images relating to the victim (this is also known as ‘revenge porn’, or ‘doxing’); threatening suicide or self-harm; or otherwise manipulating the victim to respond to contact.


The Court’s assessment

All of these behaviours are relevant to the Court’s assessment under section 2 of the 2019 Act as to whether the defendant has carried out acts associated with stalking (section 2(1)(a)), whether the defendant poses a risk of stalking to another person (section 2(1)(b)) and whether the proposed order is necessary to protect another person from such a risk, whether or not they are the victim of the stalking acts (section 2(1)(c)).


An added dimension to stalking behaviour is that with increased availability, awareness and access to digital platforms and social media, these behaviours may be carried out online, or using specific technology, or may be otherwise ‘digitally-enabled’. For the victim this may add a whole line of complications and unwanted attentions that it may be increasingly difficult to avoid.


Summary

Understanding what’s driving a person’s behaviour is key to spotting stalking early and deciding whether a Stalking Protection Order is needed. Even actions that look harmless at first can become worrying once you see a pattern of contact. Knowing the different types of stalkers, and the motivations behind them, helps police and courts get a clearer picture of the risk and what protection a victim might need. And with more of this behaviour now happening online, taking the wider context into account is more important than ever to make sure people are kept safe.


Nicola Smith
Associate-Police, Care and Justice Team

DWF

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicsmith-lawyer


Rowena Wisniewska-Sethi

Barrister

4-5 Gray’s Inn Square

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rowena-wisniewska-b1713271/


January 2026