Introduction: what a stalking allegation means for you

Stalking. The word itself carries a strong stigma, and most people we’ve met who were accused of stalking do not recognise their own behaviour in that way. Allegations usually stem from a relationship breakdown of some sort whether that’s an intimate relationship, a workplace one, or a neighbour dispute. Increasingly, allegations are being made of stalking by people known only to each other through the internet rather than in person. The conduct complained of occasionally involve direct threats, but more often it is suggested that the accused has been making repeated unwanted contacts to the complainant and has been following them or monitoring them in some other way, such as via the internet or even tracking devices placed on their vehicle.

The criminal law treats stalking seriously because it is concerned with patterns of behaviour and in the past those behaviours have escalated into far more serious crimes. Because this is a ‘course of conduct’ offence, the police and courts will look at the accused behaviour as a whole rather than focusing on an individual message or social media post, etc. As a defendant, it is usually wise to encourage the court to look into the wider context to see what is going on and how the conduct that is now complained of fits into that wider picture. Frequently, adding context will change the image completely.

That does not mean every awkward, emotional or persistent exchange amounts to stalking. The prosecution must prove the legal elements of the offence. Context matters. So does the full communication history. In many cases, the early strategic work is about stepping back from the emotional language of the allegation and carefully analysing whether the evidence truly shows stalking as defined by law.

This guide explains the criminal law on stalking in England and Wales. It focuses on the offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the difference between stalking and harassment, what the prosecution must prove, the common defence issues, sentencing, and the practical steps that usually follow once an allegation has been made.

What does the law say?

Stalking offences are found in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Act originally dealt with harassment but was expanded when gaps in the legislation were identified. The stalking offences that were later introduced aim to combat behaviour involving fixation, unwanted pursuit or intrusive monitoring of a person.

The two main offences are stalking and stalking involving a fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. The basic stalking offence is tried in the magistrates’ court. The more serious version can be tried either in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court.

Stalking sits alongside harassment. The two concepts overlap significantly, but they are not identical. Harassment is concerned with a course of conduct that alarms or distresses another person and is oppressive and unreasonable. Stalking goes further in that it requires things like monitoring of another person, following them, spying on them, etc. In practical terms, prosecutors often look for behaviour that is fixated, obsessive, unwanted and repeated.

What is stalking?

There is no single exhaustive definition of stalking. The law gives examples of behaviour that may be associated with stalking, but it deliberately does not try to list every possible scenario. In most cases, the behaviours that amount to stalking would not be an issue individually, but when taken together they become intrusive and distressing for the recipient. For example, let’s say John meet Sarah and they get on well. A message from John to Sarah asking how she is doing is probably fine. A second message asking if she might like to meet up is unlikely to be an issue. But, what about if John sends 100 messages in 24 hours without ever receiving a response? Even if all the messages are perfectly pleasant and friendly, Sarah is likely to think that many messages when taken as a group is unacceptable behaviour.

The Protection from Harassment Act gives examples of acts or omissions associated with stalking. These include following a person, contacting or attempting to contact them by any means, publishing material relating to them or purporting to come from them, monitoring their use of the internet or electronic communication, loitering in any place, interfering with their property, and watching or spying on them.

The list is not exhaustive. Other behaviour may also be relied upon, depending on the facts. For example, repeated use of fake social media accounts, contact with the complainant’s friends or family, repeated attendance near a workplace, unwanted deliveries, or attempts to track a person’s movements may all be relevant. The real question is not whether one act appears on a checklist, but whether the overall course of conduct properly amounts to stalking.

How is stalking different from harassment?

Harassment and stalking are closely linked. In simple terms, stalking is a particular form of harassment. All stalking under section 2A must amount to harassment, but not all harassment will be stalking.

A harassment allegation may involve repeated unwanted messages, arguments, complaints, abuse or distressing behaviour. A stalking allegation usually suggests something more targeted, persistent or intrusive. It may involve monitoring, following, unwanted pursuit, repeated attempts to force contact, interference with personal life, or a pattern that suggests fixation.

The basic offence of stalking

A person commits the basic offence of stalking if they pursue a course of conduct in breach of section and that course of conduct amounts to stalking. We know this isn’t the clearest explanation in the world and there is an element of “you know it when you see it” to this sort of legislation, which keeps definitions vague to avoid accidentally excluding problematic behaviour. In addition, the defendant must know, or it needs to be proven that he ought to have known, that his behaviour amounted to stalking.

The words “ought to have known” are important. The prosecution does not always have to prove that the accused actually appreciated the effect of the behaviour. The court can ask whether a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would have thought the course of conduct amounted to harassment. That objective test can be difficult for defendants who say, “I did not mean to cause distress” or “I thought I was being romantic” or “I only wanted an explanation”. Intention may be relevant to context, but it is not always a complete answer.

Basic stalking is a summary-only offence. It is dealt with in the magistrates’ court. The maximum sentence is six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, though many cases are dealt with by community orders, fines or other non-custodial outcomes depending on seriousness, previous convictions, risk, mitigation and the facts of the case.

Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress

The more serious form of the offence deals with stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. Because it is more serious Parliament has granted the courts far greater sentencing powers.

A person commits an offence if the commit the basic offence in such a way that the complainant fears violence will be used against them, or the complainant’s day to day life is seriously affected by being placed in a state of serious alarm or distress. This must happen on at least two occasions during the course of conduct that forms the basic stalking offence.

The first route is based on fear of violence. The prosecution must prove that the complainant feared violence on at least two occasions. The fear does not necessarily have to be fear of immediate violence, but it must be real rather than remote or hypothetical. The court will look carefully at what was said or done, the context, and whether the evidence genuinely supports fear that violence would be used.

The second route is based on serious alarm or distress. This is often important in stalking cases because stalking does not always involve direct threats. Behaviour may still be serious if it causes the complainant to make significant changes to ordinary life. Examples may include changing routines, avoiding certain places, altering work arrangements, changing phone numbers, increasing home security, deleting online profiles, asking others to accompany them, moving address, or suffering serious disruption to sleep, work, family life or personal safety.

The more serious version of stalking is triable either way. That means it may be dealt with in the magistrates’ court or sent to the Crown Court. In the Crown Court, the maximum sentence is ten years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

Course of conduct: why the pattern matters

Stalking is built around the concept of a course of conduct. Usually, that means conduct on at least two occasions directed at the same person. In practice, there will usually need be far more than two incidents if the prosecution are to secure a conviction. The prosecution must identify the incidents relied upon and show that they are connected in type, time, and context. The court is not simply counting incidents; it is asking whether the incidents form a pattern.

The fewer the incidents, and the further apart they are in time, the more carefully the court will need to examine whether they genuinely form a course of conduct. Two incidents can be enough, but they are not automatically enough. They must be linked in a meaningful way. On the other hand, incidents separated by time may still form a course of conduct if the context and pattern show they are part of the same behaviour.

Conduct includes speech, so messages, emails, posts and calls can form part of the course of conduct. A course of conduct may also begin as something that looks legitimate, such as a complaint, an attempt to recover property or a request for contact, but become unlawful if it is pursued in an unreasonable, intrusive or oppressive way.

This is often where defence work begins. A properly prepared chronology can show whether the alleged incidents are truly connected, whether they have been taken out of context, whether contact was mutual, whether the complainant’s response changed over time, or whether some incidents have been misunderstood or wrongly attributed. The prosecution will produce a chronology in the form of an “harassment diary” that is given to the complainant to complete after an allegation is made. The defence chronology should aim to fill in any missing gaps, for example if the complainant says he was messaged 50 times then the defence should be aiming to add in any messages, calls or meeting with the complainant that have been left out of the diary to show that the messages were not unwanted.

Online stalking and digital evidence

Stalking can take place online just as much as in person. Online allegations may involve repeated messages, fake accounts, anonymous emails, comments on public posts, monitoring social media activity, attempts to access private accounts, publication of material about the complainant, impersonation, location tracking, or contact through friends, family or professional networks.

The police can, and do, contact social media companies to identify the person behind fake accounts wherever possible.

What must the prosecution prove?

First, they must prove that the accused was responsible for the conduct alleged. This may be straightforward where messages came from a known number, but it can be more difficult where anonymous accounts, shared devices, workplace systems or third-party communications are involved.

Second, they must prove a course of conduct. Usually that means at least two connected incidents. The prosecution must particularise what those incidents are and show how they form a course rather than a series of isolated or unrelated events.

Third, the course of conduct must amount to harassment. The conduct must go beyond ordinary irritation, rudeness or unpleasantness. It must be oppressive and unreasonable, and it must alarm or distress the complainant in a way that is more than trivial.

Fourth, the conduct must amount to stalking. The acts or omissions must be associated with stalking and, when considered in the round, properly fall within the concept of stalking rather than ordinary harassment or some other offence.

Fifth, the prosecution must prove knowledge. For the basic offence, the accused must have known or ought to have known that the course of conduct amounted to harassment. For the more serious offence, the prosecution must also prove that the accused knew or ought to have known that the course of conduct would cause fear of violence or serious alarm or distress.

Finally, for the more serious version, the prosecution must prove the additional impact: fear of violence on at least two occasions, or serious alarm or distress with a substantial adverse effect on usual day-to-day activities.

Defence strategies

There is no single defence that applies to every stalking case. The right approach depends on the facts, the evidence and the charge. In many cases the defence is not simply “I did not do it”. It may be that some contact happened, but that it does not meet the legal test for stalking.

One common issue is whether there was a true course of conduct. If the prosecution relies on a small number of incidents, or incidents separated by time, the defence may argue that there is no sufficient link between them. The question is whether they form a connected pattern, not simply whether two things happened.

Another issue is whether the conduct amounted to harassment at all. Unreasonable or unattractive behaviour is not automatically criminal. The court must consider whether the conduct was sufficiently oppressive and unreasonable to justify criminal liability. That is a fact-sensitive judgment.

In online cases, identity and attribution may be central. The prosecution may need to prove who controlled an account, who sent a message, who had access to a device, and whether the digital evidence is reliable and complete.

Evidence that may help your case

Stalking cases are often won or lost on chronology and context. It is rarely enough to look at a handful of screenshots. A proper review usually needs the full pattern of communication and the background against which it occurred.

Useful evidence may include complete message threads, call logs, emails, social media records, phone downloads, CCTV, doorbell footage, location data, work records, witness evidence, travel records, proof of where you were at relevant times, and documents showing why contact occurred. If there were existing court orders, bail conditions, child arrangements, workplace duties or property issues, those documents may also be important.

What happens next: police and court process

A stalking allegation may begin with a police report, a domestic abuse complaint, an online report, a workplace referral, a neighbour dispute, or a complaint that develops out of an earlier harassment investigation. The police are likely to ask you to attend a voluntary interview at a time that suits you and the officer, but in some cases they will move directly to an arrest. The police will sometimes want to seize devices, from you in order to obtain digital evidence. They are likely to impose bail conditions and may consider applying for an interim stalking protection order. INSERT LINK HERE

You should take a police interview seriously. Anything you say will be used in court if you are charged and will assist the person who makes the charging decision in deciding whether to charge you or not.

Bail conditions are common. They are likely to prohibit contact with the complainant, attending certain locations, or using third parties to pass messages. Breaching bail conditions can lead to arrest and may significantly damage the way the case is viewed. Even where the complainant contacts you first, you should not respond. A friendly message from the complainant does not give you permission to breach bail or contact restrictions although it is something that might be used in your defence later to show that the complainant did want contact with you… but it will be far less useful if you respond and have to admit to a court that you breached your bail and/or an interim stalking protection order.

Sentencing for stalking offences

Sentencing depends on the charge, the seriousness of the conduct, the impact on the complainant, the offender’s previous convictions and the overall risk. The Sentencing Council guideline applies to adult offenders sentenced for stalking and harassment offences.

For basic stalking, the maximum sentence is six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The court may impose a discharge, fine, community order, suspended sentence or immediate custody depending on the facts.

For stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress, the maximum sentence in the Crown Court is ten years’ imprisonment and/or a fine. Serious cases may involve immediate custody, particularly where the conduct was prolonged, sophisticated, threatening, involved breaches of orders, targeted a vulnerable person, caused significant psychological harm, or continued after warnings.

Where stalking is racially or religiously aggravated, higher maximum sentences apply. Where the offence is motivated by hostility based on disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity, statutory sentence uplift provisions may also be relevant.

Mitigation can make a real difference. This may include previous good character, early acceptance of responsibility, genuine remorse, steps taken to stop contact, engagement with treatment or counselling where appropriate, mental health evidence, compliance with bail, and evidence that the behaviour was short-lived or arose in a difficult personal context. Mitigation is not about excusing behaviour; it is about helping the court understand the person, the circumstances and the risk realistically.

Restraining orders and stalking protection orders

Criminal courts frequently consider protective orders in stalking cases. A restraining order may prohibit contact, indirect contact, attendance at certain addresses, or online references to the complainant. A restraining order can be made on conviction and, in some circumstances, even after acquittal if the statutory test is met. Breaching a restraining order is a separate criminal offence.

Stalking Protection Orders are civil orders designed specifically to manage stalking risk. They can include prohibitions and positive requirements, such as restrictions on contact or requirements aimed at managing behaviour. Breach of a Stalking Protection Order or interim order is a criminal offence. Recent reforms have expanded the role of these orders, including the circumstances in which courts may be able to impose them at the end of criminal proceedings.

Orders can have a major practical impact on family life, work, accommodation, online activity and future relationships. Their wording matters. Vague or unnecessarily wide terms can create avoidable risk. If an order is being considered, it is important to address not only whether an order is necessary, but also whether each proposed term is clear, proportionate and workable.

How Chetwode can help

Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitor defend clients accused of stalking, harassment and related offences. We understand that these cases are often emotionally charged and that the allegation may arise at a time when relationships, work or family arrangements are already under strain.

We can help at every stage: before police interview, during the investigation, after charge, at trial, and at sentence. We review the evidence carefully, build a clear chronology, identify whether the correct charge has been selected, test whether the alleged incidents truly form a course of conduct, challenge weak digital evidence, advise on bail and contact restrictions, and prepare the case for court.

Where an order is proposed, we can help ensure that any restrictions are properly considered, proportionate and clearly drafted. Where a guilty plea is appropriate, we can prepare mitigation designed to reduce sentence and manage the risk of unnecessarily wide protective orders. Where the allegation is denied, we can prepare the case for trial with the care and detail these allegations require. Contact us today to find out what we can do for you.

Case studies

Case study 1: repeated contact after a relationship breakdown

Our client was involved in politics and started a relationship with an elected politician. The relationship broke down, but they both remained active in the political party and attended political events both as party members and outside the party. As a consequence, they were constantly in touch with one another. The former partner complained to police that he was being stalked by our client. It had to be accepted that there was a course of conduct that could be seen as harassment on an objective appraisal of the facts – particularly as our client accepted sending somewhere in the region of a thousand messages to her ex-partner in the space of a few weeks. It was not accepted that our client was a stalker and we pointed to the fact that they were both active in the same political party to explain why our client was present at places her former partner was likely to be – this was because of similar interests not because our client was monitoring her former partner’s movements as alleged. Ultimately, we were able to persuade the prosecution to drop the stalking allegation in return for us not opposing a short term order that would prevent our client contacting her former partner.

Case study 2: failed business relationship

Our client was accused of stalking his former business partner following the breakdown of the business relationship between them. The prosecution produced evidence showing that our client had attended the complainant’s home on a number of occasions and had made repeated attempts to contact the complainant by telephone. We were able to show that this was because our client had a legitimate reason for making contact, i.e. because there were ongoing business disputes arising from the breakdown of the relationship between them that needed to be settled. Our client was found not guilty.

FAQs

Is one message enough for stalking?

Not by itself. Stalking requires a course of conduct, normally involving conduct on at least two occasions. A single message may be evidence of another offence, depending on its content, but it will not usually be enough by itself for stalking unless the prosecution can point to other behaviours that are connected and form a course of conduct alongside the single message.

Does stalking have to involve following someone?

No. Following is one example, but stalking can also involve repeated contact, online monitoring, unwanted gifts, the creation of fake accounts either to impersonate the complainant or to obtain information about them from others, watching, loitering, interfering with property or publishing material about someone.

Is stalking the same as harassment?

No. Stalking is a particular form of harassment. The conduct must amount to harassment, but it must also involve acts or omissions associated with stalking. Thus all stalking is harassment but not all harassment is stalking.

Can I be charged with stalking if I never threatened violence?

Yes. The basic offence of stalking does not require threats of violence. The more serious offence can be based either on fear of violence or on serious alarm or distress causing a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities.

What if the complainant contacted me too?

Mutual contact can be highly relevant, but it is not automatically a defence. The court will look at the whole pattern of behaviour, when contact was wanted or unwanted, and whether any restrictions were in place. Context is key. We have had clients who say, “ahh yes but they were contacting me too.” Then they show us messages in which the complainant has replied saying (sometimes very explicitly) “do not contact me, I do not want to speak from you, hear from you, or see you”. That is very different – and less useful to us – versus a complainant who is engaging in a friendly way.

Can I reply if the complainant contacts me first?

If you have bail conditions or a Stalking Protection Order in place against you then you should absolutely not reply to the complainant if they contact you first. If somebody has just made an allegation but there are no official restrictions in place then you may not break any rules; however, it is difficult to see how engaging with them will benefit you. This person has already accused you of stalking them – there is a very real risk that they will use any contact from you against you, even if they start it!

Can stalking happen online?

Yes. Online stalking can include messages, fake profiles, monitoring, impersonation, publication of material, hacking, location tracking or repeated attempts to contact someone through digital platforms.

Will I go to prison?

That depends on the charge and the facts. Basic stalking has a lower maximum sentence. The more serious version is much more serious and can lead to custody, especially where there is prolonged conduct, threats, serious impact, breaches of orders or previous convictions.

Next steps

If you have been accused of stalking, do not try to manage the situation alone and do not contact the complainant to “clear things up”. Preserve messages, emails, call logs and social media material. Make a clear timeline while events are fresh in your mind. Do not delete accounts or devices. Most importantly, get legal advice before speaking to the police.

Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitor can help you understand the allegation, prepare for interview, challenge the evidence and protect your position from the earliest stage. Stalking cases depend heavily on detail, context and careful presentation. Early advice can make a significant difference to how the case develops.