The police response to stalking

Published on: 27 September 2024

Contents

Print this document

Foreword

Stalking is a serious crime that can have a devastating effect on victims. It has been described as a crime of psychological terror which leaves victims feeling constantly unsafe and fearful. In some tragic cases stalking behaviours escalate to serious physical harm and murder.

Victims and the public must be assured that reports of stalking will be treated seriously by the police. This means that the police must be able to recognise stalking and the risks associated with this crime. They must keep victims and the public safe and pursue perpetrators by investigating reports effectively and taking appropriate action to stop offending and seek justice.

The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, on behalf of the National Stalking Consortium, raised serious concerns about the police response to stalking in its super-complaint. Our three organisations have jointly undertaken a comprehensive investigation into these issues. We have found clear evidence supporting the concerns they raise.

We did find examples of the police taking stalking seriously, safeguarding victims well and carrying out good investigations. But in too many cases the police response was not good enough and victims were being let down.

We have made recommendations that give a clear plan of action for policing to make improvements. These focus on the need for policing to take action now to make sure they are meeting the expected standards and doing the fundamentals well in their response to stalking.

We also found there is a need for greater clarity in the criminal law relating to stalking. Our evidence suggests that government needs to change the law and guidance to provide a stronger foundation for the police response to stalking. We also recommend that the government makes changes to stalking protection orders to provide quicker options to safeguard victims and disrupt offenders.

We were encouraged to see examples of innovative and promising practice in some forces. These include examples of forces developing hubs of expertise through multi-agency working and a promising approach to digital evidence analysis in stalking cases. We have made recommendations where we think these approaches should be considered more widely across policing.

We are not the only ones calling for change and improvements. Many of the concerns we identified with poor investigations and victim care reflect the findings of other inquiries and inspections. Particularly those relating to the police response to violence against women and girls, of which stalking is a part. The Victims’ Commissioner for London has also published a report, this year, on the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to stalking. This highlighted similar findings to our investigation.

Policing and its partners are responding to these calls for change. In July 2024 the NPCC and the College of Policing published a national policing statement on violence against women and girls (VAWG). This assesses the threat VAWG poses to public safety. The statement identifies stalking and harassment as one of five high-harm and high-volume threat areas that policing will focus on over the next year. This super-complaint report and our recommendations present a real opportunity for policing to build on the progress already made. Policing must now make a step-change to improve the quality of its response to this pervasive and insidious crime.

We are grateful to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the National Stalking Consortium and to all those who contributed to this investigation from across policing, government and from victim support services and other partners involved in the response to stalking.

We would like to particularly thank the victims who shared their experiences directly with us. It is their voices that we must listen to most closely and it is their experiences that provide the impetus for change.

Rachel Watson
Director General
Independent Office for Police Conduct

Andy Cooke QPM DL
His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services

Chief Constable Sir Andy Marsh QPM
Chief Executive Officer
College of Policing

Introduction

Super-complaint about the police response to stalking

The Suzy Lamplugh Trust submitted a super-complaint regarding the police response to stalking on behalf of the National Stalking Consortium (the Consortium) in November 2022.

A super-complaint is a complaint that “a feature, or combination of features, of policing in England and Wales by one, or more than one, police force is, or appears to be, significantly harming the interests of the public” (Section 29A, Police Reform Act 2002).

The police super-complaints system is designed to examine problems of local, regional or national significance that may not be addressed by other elements of the police complaints system. More information on police super-complaints and the process for making a super-complaint is on the government police super-complaint webpage.

The Consortium raises several concerns about the police response to stalking in this super-complaint. It states that these are features of policing that are significantly harming the interests of the public:

  • Misidentification of stalking. This includes:
    • Police treating behaviours as single, unconnected incidents and not recognising the wider pattern of behaviour that constitutes stalking.
    • Police treating stalking behaviours as a different offence such as malicious communications or harassment.
    • Police minimising or trivialising stalking behaviours.
  • Flawed investigations leading to inappropriate no further action decisions. This includes:
    • The psychological effect of stalking not being sufficiently recognised by the police or treated as evidence.
    • Risk of serious harm and homicide to the victim not being recognised by the police.
    • Police failing to recognise the influence of online (or cyber) stalking and not treating the behaviours as evidence.
    • Cases being wrongly closed by the police due to lack of evidence, where evidence was available.
  • Failure to offer or refusal to apply for a stalking protection order on behalf of a victim in cases of stalking.
  • Lack of response by police following breaches of protective orders (including stalking protection orders, non-molestation orders, restraining orders, bail conditions or other), and the failure to treat continued breaches of orders as a further offence of stalking.
  • Further issues of concern including:
    • Lack of referrals to specialist services by the police leaving the victim at risk.
    • Dangerous or unhelpful advice given to victims.
    • Evidence not being collected within the statutory six month timeframe, where this applies, and the case having to be closed for this reason.
    • Lack of stalking intervention programmes across England and Wales.

Terminology

Referring to victims

We have used the term ‘victim’ throughout this report to refer to those who report being subjected to stalking and other criminal behaviours. We recognise that some people prefer the term ‘victim-survivor’. However, ‘victim’ reflects the language used by the Consortium in the super-complaint and in the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. Therefore, we have used this same term throughout the report for consistency.

Frontline and investigator

We have used the terms ‘frontline’ and ‘investigator’ to describe officers’ main functions and responsibilities.

By ‘frontline’ we mean officers who were primarily in neighbourhood policing teams, or those teams whose main role is to respond to emergency calls. These officers have received training on investigating priority and volume crimes through level one of the professionalising investigations programme (PIP). This is why frontline officers are sometimes called PIP 1-trained officers.

By ‘investigator’ we mean officers whose primary role is to investigate crime. These officers have typically received further training in conducting serious and complex investigations through level two of PIP. This is why these officers are sometimes called PIP 2-trained officers.

Dedicated stalking officers and staff

We have used the term ‘dedicated stalking officers and staff’ to describe those officers and staff whose main role is related to stalking. These officers and staff are those who are recognised as providing specialist capabilities and are sometimes called ‘subject-matter experts’.

Our investigation

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) and the College of Policing jointly investigated the super-complaint. References to ‘we’, ‘us’ and ‘our’ throughout this report relate to the three organisations collectively.

The purpose of our investigation was to decide if the features of policing in the super‑complaint are significantly harming the interests of the public, and, if so, what should be done about it.

We considered all the concerns raised by the Consortium. And we have sought to understand both the barriers to, and facilitators of, the police providing an effective response to stalking. This report sets out our findings, conclusions and recommendations.

We have also published a series of evidence reports as annexes to this joint investigation report. These evidence reports provide details of the scope, methodology and findings from each strand of the investigation.

The investigation lines of enquiry and associated annexed evidence reports are listed below:

The investigation team also spoke with a range of stakeholders to inform our investigation. These included:

  • representatives of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust
  • Deputy Chief Constable Paul Mills, National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Lead for stalking and harassment
  • Assistant Chief Constable Samantha Millar, NPCC Strategic Programme Director for violence against women and girls
  • Temporary Chief Constable Alex Murray, NPCC Lead for artificial intelligence
  • Katy Bourne, Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex
  • Claire Waxman, Victims Commissioner for London
  • Detective Sergeant Dave Thomason, Harm Reduction Unit, Cheshire Constabulary
  • Dr Rachael Wheatley, Professional Psychological Practice Programme Manager, University of Derby
  • representatives from the Home Office, Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service
  • various police force stalking leads as part of a special meeting of the NPCC stalking and harassment tactical working group
  • police officers and staff from Hampshire Constabulary and West Midlands Police who were involved in three stalking cases identified as good quality investigations in HMICFRS fieldwork

HMICFRS has previously examined the police response to stalking. The findings were considered as part of the super-complaint investigation. In particular:

Summary of findings and recommendations

Policing and its partners should do more to make sure stalking is always treated seriously

“I think it was the officer taking it seriously… in that very first instance… [the officer] coming out and doing a report was really positive in terms of me realising, oh, this [is] serious, I’m not making this up, this is serious.”

(Stalking victim – interview)

Stalking is a serious crime which can have a devastating impact on victims. It is characterised by a pattern of unwanted, fixated and obsessive behaviour which is intrusive. Stalking can cause psychological trauma and lead to serious physical violence.

The importance of the police taking reports of stalking seriously was a central theme that came out of our interviews with victims and the research we considered on victim experiences. It is fundamental to an effective policing response to stalking. Too often throughout this investigation, we heard examples of the police not taking stalking seriously enough. Our findings also suggest that the way the police respond to stalking victims can differ depending on whether the stalking happened in a domestic abuse or non-domestic abuse context.

Our investigation found clear evidence supporting the concerns raised in the super‑complaint which can lead to the poor experience reported by victims. This includes evidence of police not always:

  • Identifying and recording cases as stalking.
  • Recognising and responding to risk of harm, including escalating risk and indicators of higher risk (like perpetrators breaching protective orders).
  • Recognising the effect (including psychological impact) of stalking on victims and responding with empathy.
  • Prioritising stalking cases appropriately or allocating these to investigators with the right skills and experience to ensure effective investigations.
  • Using their powers to protect victims or pursue perpetrators, including not seeking stalking protection orders (SPOs) and not always arresting suspects when appropriate.

Stalking has not always been well understood within policing, across the criminal justice system or by wider society. This is changing as awareness of the problems and risks associated with stalking increases. Police now record many more stalking crimes than they did in the years following the introduction of the offence, and action has been taken by the Government. For example, to introduce SPOs to protect victims and disrupt offending. We have also seen examples of innovative and promising practice in some forces which seem to be improving the police response to stalking.

But our investigation found problems persist with the police response to stalking. We have made a series of recommendations to address our findings. In this summary, we have structured our findings and recommendations as a plan of action for policing and its partners. This is set out under three themes:

  1. Providing a better foundation for policing to create a good service for stalking victims: Changes to law and guidance relating to stalking would give policing a better foundation on which to operate. Policies and procedures related to crime recording and police training should be improved to help the police identify stalking more effectively.
  2. Meeting expected standards now and doing the fundamentals well: We found examples where the police had safeguarded victims well and carried out good investigations. But this was not always the case. Poor safeguarding, victim care and inadequate investigations can leave victims at risk and perpetrators unchallenged. Policing should act now to improve the service it provides to stalking victims and the public.
  3. Implementing what works, spreading promising practice and encouraging innovation: Some forces have already implemented some promising practices which are helping to identify stalking, support victims and manage perpetrators. These should be considered across all forces in England and Wales. Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence present opportunities to further innovate to support the police response to stalking.

Creating a better foundation for policing to provide a good service for stalking victims

The criminal law on stalking is unclear and difficult to apply

The lack of a clear legal definition of stalking, the overlap between stalking and harassment, and the confusion between these, are widely seen to be contributing to misidentification and mishandling of stalking by policing. We heard this from policing and non-policing stakeholders we spoke to as part of this investigation.

We think the criminal law should be changed so it is easier for the police to understand and apply. The Government should consider whether there should continue to be multiple stalking offences and whether any stalking offence should be a summary-only offence that can only be tried at a magistrate’s court.

We found that officers and staff do not always effectively understand and apply the distinction between the summary-only stalking offence in section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the more serious stalking offence in section 4A of that Act. Only the section 4A offence can be tried at the Crown Court, which can impose stricter penalties than magistrates’ courts. Stalking is often more serious in terms of the effect on the victim and more complex to investigate than other types of summary-only offences. England and Wales is the only jurisdiction in the UK with two stalking offences. There is a single, either-way offence of stalking in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We think the Home Office should consider whether there should be a single, either-way stalking offence in England and Wales.

Stalking should be more clearly defined in law. However, more detailed information needs to be available about stalking beyond the legislation. Stalking manifests in a variety of behaviours and these behaviours are likely to evolve as technology develops and the way people communicate changes. At present there are several guidance documents which try to further explain stalking for the police but there is no statutory guidance on the offence. Statutory guidance on stalking would provide a single authority on the law and encourage a consistent understanding of stalking across the criminal justice system.

Changes to the legislation and the development of statutory guidance should include consultation with stakeholders, including the Consortium and other experts, to build on the evidence set out in this investigation.

Recommendation 1: To the Home Office
Bring forward legislation in the 2024-2025 parliamentary session that would change the criminal law related to stalking so that it is easier for the police to understand and apply.

The Home Office should consider:

  • The definition of stalking and the legal distinction between stalking, harassment and coercive and controlling behaviour.
  • Whether there should be a single stand-alone stalking offence instead of the separate section 2A and section 4A stalking offences.
  • If the section 2A offence is retained, whether it should be amended to an either-way offence.
  • Including a provision that a stalking course of conduct is complete if a reasonable person would consider it to be so.
  • Issuing statutory guidance on stalking.

Guidance on stalking is scattered and inconsistent

There are several sources of advice and guidance for the police on stalking and stalking protection orders:

Each document has a different focus in terms of distinguishing what is and is not stalking. This adds to confusion about how the police should apply the law.

The statutory guidance on the Stalking Protection Act for the police is focussed on the application for and management of stalking protection orders, but it includes an annex with some explanation about what stalking is. We think this document has the clearest and most descriptive explanation of stalking in the current absence of specific statutory guidance on stalking offences.

During our investigation the College of Policing updated its advice documents so they align more closely to the statutory guidance on the Stalking Protection Act for the police. The Home Office crime recording rules for frontline officers and staff is the other main source of information for the police. It should be similarly updated.

Recommendation 2: To the Home Office
By 27 March 2025, to work with the College of Policing, the NPCC lead for stalking and harassment and the National Stalking Consortium to update information on stalking or harassment in the Home Office crime recording rules for frontline officers and staff. Information on stalking within the rules should align with how stalking is described in the statutory guidance on the Stalking Protection Act for the police.

 

Action 1: For the College of Policing
The College of Policing will develop its authorised professional practice (APP) on stalking or harassment. The update will take into consideration the learning from this super-complaint including learning on identifying stalking and distinguishing it from harassment, identifying and assessing risk, victim safeguarding and care and multi‑agency working. This development work will begin during the 2024/25 financial year.

The legal framework for stalking protection orders can be improved to better support policing to use them

Stalking protection orders (SPOs) are a specific protection order which the police can apply for at any point during a stalking case. SPOs can include positive requirements (things you must do) as well as prohibitions (things you must not do). Breaching an SPO is a criminal offence which carries a potential prison sentence. Policing and non-policing stakeholders told us these aspects of SPOs were useful and mean they have the potential to effectively safeguard victims and tackle stalking behaviours.

But SPO applications can be slow and complicated. The legal framework for SPOs should be changed to make the application process simpler and more efficient. Where possible, the process to apply for an SPO should align with the application process for other protective orders that the police use, to help simplify the system.

Interim SPOs were intended to provide a speedier process for the police to obtain an SPO when there is an immediate risk of harm. But the application process for an interim SPO is very similar to that for a full SPO. Officers must apply to a magistrate’s court to secure both interim and full SPOs.

In domestic abuse cases, the police can use a domestic violence protection notice (DVPN) to protect victims and the public without having to apply to a magistrate’s court. DVPNs are time-limited and can only apply prohibitions but they can be put in place directly by police with senior authorisation. The interim-SPO does not provide this same quick-time protection for stalking victims as DVPNs provide to victims of domestic violence.

There is no provision for the courts to issue an SPO on conviction or acquittal, but they can issue restraining orders in these circumstances. An SPO may be more effective than a restraining order for managing stalking behaviours as it can place requirements on those subject to the order and not just prohibitions. The courts should be able to issue an SPO without the need for an application from the police.

Officers can only apply for SPOs for people who live in, visit or intend to visit their force area. But stalkers do not need to live near or visit their victim to target them online. The current framework adds complications for officers to apply for SPOs in some cases involving online stalking behaviours.

Recommendation 3: To the Home Office
Bring forward legislation in the 2024-2025 parliamentary session that would change the legal framework for SPOs to:
  • Align SPOs more closely to orders available in domestic abuse cases, including providing for a stalking protection notice that could be approved by a senior police officer before an application for an interim or full SPO is made to a magistrate’s court.
  • Provide for courts to issue an SPO on the conviction or acquittal of an offender.
  • Provide that chief constables can apply for an SPO for perpetrators who do not live in, visit, or intend to visit their force area.

We found evidence that some police officers and staff (including police legal teams) are reluctant to apply for SPOs where other protective measures, like bail conditions, are in place. We found some confusion in forces about when it was necessary and appropriate to apply for an SPO in addition to or instead of other protections. We think further guidance would clarify this for officers and staff, so they are confident to apply for SPOs when necessary and appropriate.

Recommendation 4: To the Home Office
By 27 March 2025, work with the College of Policing and others across the criminal justice system to issue guidance that assists the police and criminal justice partners to select the most appropriate protective measure or combination of measures to pursue in stalking cases.

Procedures and rules for incident and crime recording are not always helping the police to identify stalking

Some forces do not have processes that enable staff in control rooms to easily highlight that an incident may involve stalking. This is a missed opportunity to identify and highlight stalking when a victim makes a report.

The current national standard for incident recording counting rules (NSIR) was published in 2011. The Home Office is working with policing partners to produce a new national standard for incident recording and assessment (NSIR&A). The new standards should include a requirement to flag incidents that may involve stalking. This will assist police officers and staff to identify and record stalking at the earliest opportunity.

Recommendation 5: To the Home Office
Before publishing the upcoming national standards for incident recording and assessment (NSIR&A), find the most appropriate way to include stalking in the NSIR&A, so that incidents potentially involving stalking are flagged as early as possible.

The Home Office crime recording rules for frontline officers and staff only require the police to record the most serious crime involved in each case they deal with. This is known as the principal crime rule. This means that sometimes stalking crimes do not have to be formally recorded when a more serious offence has been recorded (like rape or murder). Police must still investigate all reported offences and the investigation must be appropriately documented.

Some forces have record management systems which allow them to document other offences on a principal crime record in a way that is searchable. These are known as “included classifications”. But some force systems do not currently have this capability.

Documenting stalking as an included classification would enable officers and staff to search for all stalking offences on record management systems rather than just stalking that is recorded as the principal crime. Where stalking is recorded as the principal crime, documenting other reported offences as included classifications would also provide a more complete picture of the offending. Some stakeholders have said it would also make it easier for supervisors and forces to reassure themselves that all the offences associated with stalking have been appropriately investigated.

We think that all police forces should seek changes to their records management systems that would allow for associated crimes to be listed in a way that is searchable. We think that the Home Office should also review the impact of the principal crime rule on the identification and investigating of stalking and make changes or provide additional guidance to police if required.

Recommendation 6: To the Home Office
By 27 March 2025, to review the impact of the principal crime rule on the identification and investigation of stalking. This should include an examination of whether risks associated with stalking may be being missed and implement any changes needed.

 

Recommendation 7: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, where required, seek changes to their crime recording systems to enable staff and officers to document and search for crimes not recorded as the principal crime, as included classifications on crime records.

Processes should be put in place to make sure this system capability is effectively used by officers and staff.

While any necessary system changes are pending, chief constables should put alternative measures in place to make sure stalking and related offences are fully searchable. This could, for example, be the submission of intelligence reports.

Data published by the Home Office about stalking is not detailed or accessible enough

There are gaps in the data that is readily available to policing and the public about stalking. This affects the ability of police leaders to fully understand and compare the police response to stalking within and between forces. It also means organisations with an interest in stalking cannot use this information in their work.

The Office for National Statistics release on crime in England and Wales includes survey data about people’s experiences of stalking. It also includes a figure for police recorded stalking and harassment in England and Wales. This figure describes all stalking, harassment and malicious communications offences recorded by the police.

The Home Office publishes more detailed information on the number of police recorded stalking crimes within its open data tables on police recorded crime and outcomes. Anyone (who knows how) can use the tables to access the number of stalking crimes recorded by each police force in England and Wales from 2012/13. But the data is not broken down by the section 2A and 4A stalking offences.

Recommendation 8: To the Home Office
From the next data release onwards, publish police recorded crime data so it shows section 2A and section 4A stalking crimes separately.

In 2021, the Home Office and HM Courts and Tribunals Service published data about SPOs which had been collected for a Home Office review of SPOs. This included information on the number of SPO applications the police made to magistrates, the number issued by magistrates, and the number of times the courts were notified of an SPO breach. The Home Office has not published more recent data. The Home Office and Ministry of Justice told us during our investigation that work was underway to collect and publish this data more routinely.

Recommendation 9: To the Ministry of Justice
Before the end of 2024, begin routinely publishing, within criminal courts statistics, data regarding the number of interim and full SPOs applied for, granted and breached.

Forces are providing training on stalking, but it is not always clear that all officers and staff dealing with stalking have received the training they need

Training provided by forces appears to broadly align with the learning outcomes about stalking in the public protection national policing curriculum. However, there are inconsistencies across forces.

Some forces are using a College of Policing e-learning package on stalking or harassment. This helps to make sure they provide training that aligns to the national policing curriculum. However, use of this e-learning is not widespread.

The College of Policing updated the content of this stalking e-learning package during the super-complaint investigation. The College of Policing and the NPCC will write to forces to make them aware of these changes, and how the e-learning supports the delivery of learning outcomes related to stalking in the public protection national policing curriculum.

Some forces co-provide training with local or national victim services and other people with expertise. This may help officers to better understand different perspectives, including the victim’s perspective.

Training on stalking is an opportunity to explain local procedures and practice to officers and staff that they are required to follow to provide a good service to victims. The training materials we reviewed in our fieldwork did not always cover this. The force stalking policies were also not always as comprehensive as they should be.

Some forces appear to have a poor understanding of who has attended training about stalking, when and how often. This means they cannot clearly identify how training is helping to improve the response to victims.

Recommendation 10: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, review and update their learning and training provision relating to stalking so it:
  • Meets the learning outcomes on stalking within the public protection national policing curriculum.
  • Makes appropriate use of the stalking or harassment e-learning product developed by the College of Policing.
  • Uses the skills and knowledge of local victim advocates or others from outside policing with relevant expertise.
  • Includes information on relevant local policies and practice where necessary.
  • Is provided to the officers and staff who will most benefit from the learning.

Chief constables should also make sure that their policies and practice are reviewed and updated in accordance with the findings in the super-complaint investigation report.

Meeting expected standards now and doing the fundamentals well

Many forces do not sufficiently understand the scale and types of stalking in their area and have not always embedded effective strategies to support their response to stalking

Some of the fieldwork forces did not have a problem profile or other form of product that helped them understand the nature of stalking in their area. Even when forces did have a product, we found it was not as comprehensive as it should have been, with gaps in analysis around victim or offender profiles.

Some of the fieldwork forces had combined stalking offences with harassment offences in force management statements. They set out current and predicted future demand without reflecting on the potential differences in the demand generated from these different offences.

Some forces were not able to provide us with important performance data, like victim service referral rates, in response to our force self-assessment survey. We also found that fieldwork forces did not always measure victim satisfaction or engage with victims or advocates to hear the victims’ voice.

In February 2024 the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing published a policing violence against women and girls (VAWG) national framework for delivery (PDF document) and a complementary force self-assessment template (PDF document). These provide a four-P model (prepare, protect, pursue and prevent) to organise a strategic response to VAWG. Forces should use this framework to guide their strategic response to VAWG offences. These include stalking, a crime that disproportionately affects women and girls.

Recommendation 11: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, make sure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to fully understand the scale and types of stalking behaviour within their force and the effectiveness of their response. This should align with the VAWG national delivery framework (PDF document). Mechanisms should include:
  • Problem profiles using police data and intelligence and other sources of information to ensure that the full extent of stalking is well understood. This could include information sharing with local victims’ services and other public services, and national and local statistics.
  • Regular assurance work such as audits to better understand the force response and make improvements where appropriate, including monitoring the use of SPOs, investigation outcomes and the quality of investigations.
  • Ways to regularly receive feedback from victims, such as victim surveys.
  • Force management statements which reflect current and future demand from stalking.

Poor risk assessment and safeguarding may be leaving some victims at serious risk

The police had not identified risk of serious harm or homicide to a victim in many of the relevant cases that were part of our fieldwork case file review. This finding is especially concerning. Our review of case files also identified many cases where officers did not seem to be taking a proactive approach to managing risk by making risk management plans.

We also found evidence of officers and staff not recognising the risks associated with breaches of orders or other protective measures in a stalking context. This includes not recognising the breaches as further instances of stalking and not having robust processes to identify breaches as important indicators of escalating risk and respond to them accordingly. Forces should consider additional checks or screening around risk, for stalking and breaches of orders crimes, given the risks associated with these types of crime.

During this super-complaint investigation, the College of Policing worked with the NPCC to release a NPCC-developed risk identification tool for stalking, the stalking screening tool (SST). The College of Policing also supported the NPCC with knowledge sharing events to enable forces adopting the SST to help each other implement it successfully.

Risks to stalking victims should be considered throughout an investigation. In domestic abuse cases there are embedded processes for ongoing assessment and management of risk, including well-established tools which support record keeping and information sharing. This is not always the situation for other stalking cases. We found confusion in forces about which tools to use to assess and manage risk in non-domestic abuse stalking cases. Some forces were relying on a question set which helps identify stalking risk (known as the S-DASH) that HMICFRS has previously warned is not sufficient on its own to adequately assess ongoing risks to stalking victims.

The College of Policing had already published information in its advice for investigators on stalking or harassment (PDF document) on the available risk assessment tools to use in stalking cases. The College of Policing has updated this list to provide greater clarity on the most appropriate risk tools to use during stalking investigations.

Recommendation 12: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, take steps to make sure that risk identification, assessment and management is effective in all stalking and breaches of orders cases, including by:
  • Considering implementing the stalking screening tool to support the identification of stalking and the risks associated with stalking.
  • Having clear policies and procedures in place for assessing and managing risk in all cases. And where appropriate, embedding recognised risk assessment tools in force systems so that it is easy for officers to access, use and document their consideration of risk and safeguarding.
  • Recognising (in policies, guidance and training) the heightened risk associated with breaches of protective orders and measures.
  • Implementing screening and checking processes to support the early identification, assessment and management of high-risk cases. This may require stalking and breach of order cases to be considered at daily management meetings.

Our review of IOPC stalking cases included some cases where police officers or staff had taken advantage of their position to pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with a member of the public and which also involved stalking behaviours. In most of these cases, the police suspect was investigated for serious offences, including misconduct in a public office or misuse of police systems. However, it was not common for these cases to be recorded and dealt with specifically as stalking offences by either the IOPC or the police force professional standards departments who investigated them. This means that the risk to victims may not have been properly identified and managed, including through stalking-specific protections such as SPOs. Victims would also be unlikely to be referred to specialist stalking support services.

The IOPC recognises that there is more it can do to make sure IOPC staff and police officers and staff in police professional standards departments recognise and respond appropriately to stalking behaviours in police perpetrated abuse of position cases.

Action 2: For the IOPC
By 27 March 2025, the IOPC will provide advice to IOPC staff and police professional standards departments about recognising and responding to police perpetrated stalking behaviours, particularly where these are present in cases involving police abuse of position.

The use of SPOs by the police is worryingly low

Robust implementation and management of protective orders is an important way in which policing can manage perpetrators and challenge their behaviours. It is therefore concerning that the use of SPOs in stalking cases appears to be low. The number of SPO applications made per recorded stalking crime does vary between forces. This suggests variable approaches to how the orders are implemented. The likelihood of an SPO being granted to protect a victim should not be dependent on where the case is being handled. Police leaders must do more to make sure officers and staff have sufficient knowledge and support to identify cases and apply for SPOs when appropriate.

In some forces officers and staff in roles dedicated to responding to stalking support the application and management of SPOs. Other dedicated teams, like those that specifically work on the application and management of lots of different orders and protections, can also play this role.

Recommendation 13: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, take steps to make sure that force strategies, structures and processes are in place so that police consider an SPO in every stalking case, and apply for an SPO where relevant and appropriate to prevent harm and further offending.

To achieve this, chief constables should review, and revise where necessary:

  • Local training and guidance on SPOs, including training and guidance for supervisors.
  • Mechanisms for supporting investigating officers to identify cases where SPOs would be appropriate and assisting them with SPO applications. This could be through dedicated teams or roles and/or through daily management meetings considering risk and safeguarding.

Stalking victims often do not receive the care and support that they need and should be able to expect from police

Our case file review found that police were failing to consistently meet aspects of the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (the victims’ code). This included not conducting and recording victim needs assessments, or not doing so early enough, and not always communicating well with victims. We also found many cases where the police had not referred stalking victims to any victim support services.

We found poor levels of awareness within policing that stalking victims are entitled to enhanced rights under the victims’ code. This means stalking victims are not always told about the specialist victim support services that exist or are not referred to them when appropriate.

Poor compliance with the victims’ code is a known issue across the criminal justice system. In their report Meeting the needs of victims in the criminal justice system, HMICFRS, His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) called for system-wide change to improve the service to all victims. Our evidence supports these recommendations.

Recommendation 14: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, take steps to make sure stalking victims receive the rights they are entitled to under the victims’ code and have access to support services. Chief constables should make sure:
  • Victim needs assessments are always completed.
  • Their force has appropriate processes to make sure all stalking victims are told about their rights under the victims’ code.
  • Information about the national and specialist stalking support services available in their force area is easily available to police officers and staff, victims and the general public.
  • Victims who would like to receive support are referred to an appropriate service in a timely manner.
  • They monitor the number of stalking victims who are referred to specialist support services and take action when referral numbers are low.

The availability of specialist stalking support services is sometimes variable within and between forces

In some force areas there are no specialist stalking support or advocacy services. This inhibits the ability of forces to meet their responsibilities under the victims’ code to refer stalking victims to a specialist support service.

There is typically greater provision of specialist domestic abuse services, like independent domestic violence advocates (IDVAs), than specialist stalking services, like independent stalking advocacy caseworkers (ISACs). This can mean that victims who have or had an intimate relationship with their stalker receive some kind of local specialist service, but other stalking victims do not.

Evidence shows you can improve the quality of investigations and victim care when specialist victim services are available and work closely with investigating officers.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 places a duty on police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and their mayor equivalents to collaborate with health services and local councils on victim services. This duty provides further impetus for PCCs and mayor equivalents to consider local provision of these services.

Recommendation 15: To police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and their mayor equivalents
By 27 March 2025, review whether the right specialist services have been commissioned to support stalking victims in their area, including provision of trained independent stalking advocate caseworkers (ISACs).

PCCs and their mayor equivalents should provide the necessary services where they do not exist and should consider collaborating across force boundaries to provide services if it would be efficient and effective to do so.

The service to stalking victims can be improved by better collaboration between investigators and victim advocates or support services

Our evidence shows that victim advocates and support services improve investigations, safeguarding and victim support. They make sure the victim’s voice is heard throughout the investigation and act as critical friends to policing. When investigators, victim advocates and support services do not work closely together, this can negatively influence the response to victims. For example, police safeguarding plans cannot account for all available information without access to additional risk assessments carried out by victim advocates.

We found that closer working relationships between the police, support services and advocates can be encouraged through open information sharing policies and/or co‑location of services.

Recommendation 16: To chief constables, PCCs and their mayor equivalents
By 27 March 2025, work together to review commissioning arrangements and make changes as soon as possible to ensure they embed collaborative working and information sharing between policing and services providing victim support to stalking victims.

The government can now issue statutory guidance on the role and function of some specified victim support services under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. We think statutory guidance on independent stalking advocate caseworkers (ISACs) could provide important clarity about how they should work together and share information with investigators.

Stalking and breach of order cases are not always allocated to the most appropriate investigators

The nature of some stalking crimes means they should be investigated by officers and staff trained to provide investigations into complex and serious crimes.

Crime allocation policies for stalking offences vary between forces. Some allocation policies were unclear or only focussed on whether there was a domestic abuse context, or whether the case was treated as a section 2A or section 4A stalking offence. Some of the fieldwork forces did not have clear policies on which teams should investigate breaches of protective orders.

We also found that in some forces crime allocation policies were frequently not adhered to. This meant that frontline officers were investigating more serious and complex stalking cases when this may not be appropriate. There was sometimes disagreement in forces about who should investigate stalking cases. Some of the victims, officers and staff we spoke to described stalking cases that were moved between officers and teams. They felt this had caused delays and had an adverse influence on communication with the victim.

Force crime allocation policies should now reflect new content on case allocation within APP on investigations published by the College of Policing. This says impact, seriousness and complexity should guide case allocation decisions. The new APP content also says risk of harm, repeat victimisation, and unreported or historical incidents should be considered when the police make allocation decisions for crimes like stalking.

Recommendation 17: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, make sure the new College of Policing investigations APP content on case allocation is reflected in the relevant policies relating to the allocation of stalking and breach of order cases for investigation. Force policies should support the allocation of stalking cases to officers with the right skills and experience, taking into account the potential risk and complexity involved in stalking and breach of order cases.

Stalking investigations are sometimes not good enough

National figures show stalking cases are often closed without further action due to evidential difficulties or because the victim did not support further action. We note the concerns raised by the Consortium regarding the low charge rate.

Our case file review found evidence of police sometimes failing to complete reasonable lines of enquiry, including not securing evidence from digital devices. We also found evidence of officers failing to use their powers of arrest and failing to use their powers to search for and seize evidence belonging to suspects. Most case files were also missing evidence of the psychological impact on victims. In many cases, we did not think officers had recognised this impact at all. This is concerning as providing evidence of victims’ fear of violence, or serious alarm or distress are ways of proving the section 4A stalking offence.

We heard of some promising digital investigative techniques. These include an approach to digital evidence analysis in stalking cases trialled in the Metropolitan Police Service. The College of Policing has now included this approach, known as Operation Atlas, on its practice bank. We think other forces should explore how to implement similar techniques to make the best use of digital evidence in stalking investigations.

Some of the investigations in our case file review were poorly supervised. Good supervision improves the quality of investigations and is particularly important when investigations are led by new or inexperienced officers. The College of Policing published guidelines for supervisors on supporting the delivery of effective investigations in August 2023. It is also scoping a new educational programme for front-line supervisors to make sure they have the skills and knowledge to support their officers and staff to undertake quality investigations of public protection crimes like stalking.

The NPCC and College of Policing 2024 national policing statement for violence against women and girls (VAWG) committed to making sure investigations into VAWG offences, including stalking investigations, are victim centred, suspect focused and context led. This approach has already proved effective in securing justice in cases involving rape and serious sexual offences.

Recommendation 18: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, take steps to improve the quality of stalking investigations by taking a victim centred, suspect focussed and context led approach. Chief constables should make sure:
  • Their workforce has the capacity and capability to undertake effective stalking investigations and can apply new and innovative investigation techniques to pursue digital lines of enquiry.
  • All reasonable lines of enquiry are pursued, supported by good supervision.
  • Arrest and search powers are used to gather evidence from and about suspects.
  • The impact on victims is evidenced in witness statements, so it can be used to inform charging decisions and improve the likelihood of successful investigation outcomes.

A joint approach from police and the Crown Prosecution Service is likely to improve investigation outcomes for victims of stalking

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) response to stalking was outside the scope of this investigation. We therefore did not speak to CPS prosecutors to understand the reasons for their decisions relating to stalking cases. But we did hear about practice in the CPS related to stalking from policing stakeholders.

The 2017 Living in fear report on the police and CPS response to stalking identified several areas for improvement for the police and CPS. Our investigation found that some of the concerns raised in 2017 are still present for policing, and it is possible that they continue to be challenges for the CPS too.

A joint police and CPS response is vital to improve criminal justice outcomes for victims. This has been an important feature of work to improve outcomes in rape cases under Operation Soteria, and to improve the response to domestic abuse through the domestic abuse joint justice plan.

The CPS and the NPCC are updating the joint protocol for stalking or harassment as an action within the domestic abuse joint justice plan strategic priorities. We welcome this activity.

Recommendation 19: To the Crown Prosecution Service
By 27 March 2025, consider the findings from this investigation and take action in relation to any areas where the Crown Prosecution Service may also need to improve its response to stalking. This could include:
  • Ensuring consistency in how stalking is described across guidance it produces.
  • Identifying stalking and understanding the risks and effect of stalking on victims.
  • Recognising breaches of orders as further instances of stalking or serious escalation of risk.
  • Providing effective victim care, including by working with stalking advocates and support services.

The police could do more to keep stalking victims safe online and to better understand online elements of stalking offending

We heard from victims who reported online stalking behaviours which were not recognised by the police as stalking. This contributed to victims feeling that their report was dismissed by officers and staff. We also found evidence of cases where the police gave victims unhelpful and potentially dangerous online safeguarding advice. We also saw evidence that some forces lacked the necessary hardware and software to protect victims online.

Nationally there is a recognition that online stalking behaviours are harmful and that policing needs to do more to understand and disrupt online offending. The NPCC and College of Policing VAWG national police statement 2024 identifies online and tech‑enabled VAWG, including online stalking behaviours, as a significant area of risk. Under the national delivery framework for VAWG (PDF document), policing should develop its understanding of dangerous online spaces to inform its response, including preventative work.

Online communications like social media networks have become commonplace in most people’s daily life. Yet the police infrequently apply the online flag to stalking cases that include online offending. This means police forces cannot rely on this flag to understand how many stalking cases they have that involve online stalking behaviours and plan their resources accordingly.

Recommendation 20: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, take steps to improve how their force effectively recognises and responds to online elements of stalking. This should include making sure:
  • The scale and nature of online stalking behaviours informs their strategic understanding of, and the response to, stalking.
  • Examples of online stalking are included in locally produced training and guidance material about stalking.
  • Clear online safety advice is available to officers and staff, drawing on the College of Policing APP on stalking or harassment when it is developed.
  • Appropriate tools, technologies and support services to digitally safeguard victims are procured and officers and staff use these resources when appropriate.

Implementing what works, spreading promising practice and encouraging innovation

There are examples of innovative and promising practice happening locally to improve the police response to stalking and work is being done to share these with all forces

We have found examples of innovative and promising practice during our investigation. We have worked proactively with forces to share some of these examples on the College of Policing’s practice bank so that the information is widely available. We have highlighted where we have done so throughout this report.

The NPCC lead for stalking and harassment facilitates some sharing and learning at a national working group and through regional networks. We encourage the NPCC and forces to build on this by using the practice bank to share practice related to stalking, including about digital safeguarding technologies.

Investment in dedicated stalking officers and staff can provide positive benefits to the force response to stalking

Dedicated stalking officers and staff are responsible for coordinating their force response to stalking and promoting a suspect focused, victim-centred and context led approach to stalking crimes in some forces.

Our investigation found these dedicated stalking officers and staff added value to their forces’ responses to stalking by:

  • screening crimes and incidents to identify stalking cases that had been misidentified
  • proactively supporting investigating officers to improve the quality of investigations and safeguarding
  • supporting officers to apply for SPOs
  • raising awareness and knowledge about stalking in forces
  • providing points of contact for advocacy services, and improving links between forces and specialist victim support services

Two examples of teams with dedicated stalking officers and staff are included on the College of Policing’s practice bank. The harm reduction unit in Cheshire, which is explored further below in the discussion of multi-agency responses to stalking, and the early awareness stalking intervention (EASI) unit in West Midlands Police. Other forces have established dedicated resources, including subject matter experts, in different ways.

Recommendation 21: To the NPCC lead for stalking and harassment
By 27 March 2025, to collate and disseminate information to chief constables on the dedicated stalking co-ordination roles that exist. This information should support chief constables to consider whether and how dedicated stalking officers and staff can be used to support the police response to stalking.

The information collated and disseminated should include (but not be limited to) details of:

  • Skills and experiences of dedicated stalking officers and staff, and any extra training provided to them by the force.
  • Day-to-day responsibilities of dedicated stalking officers and staff, and how these are aligned to force priorities.
  • How dedicated stalking officers and staff are organised within force operational command structures.
  • How dedicated stalking officers and staff contribute to multi-agency working which supports victims and provides interventions to perpetrators.

 

Recommendation 22: To chief constables
By 27 September 2025, using the information collated by the NPCC lead under recommendation 21, to consider whether and how dedicated stalking officers and staff, or other subject matter experts, can be used to add value and support the force response to stalking.

Early screening of crime reports can help to identify stalking cases misidentified at first response

There will always be a risk of misidentification of stalking at first response as stalking overlaps with other criminal and non-criminal behaviours.

We found several forces recognised this and used screening processes to help find cases that had been misidentified. Some forces have invested in dedicated stalking officers and staff to facilitate this type of screening. For example, the early awareness stalking intervention (EASI) unit in West Midlands Police carries out daily screening of reported stalking and harassment crimes and some types of order breaches.

This screening can also help to make sure the police’s allocation of cases, investigative actions, safeguarding decisions, and referrals for victim support are appropriate.

Recommendation 23: To chief constables
By 27 March 2025, implement a mechanism for early screening of crimes to improve the identification, recording and management of all stalking cases.

Forces should consider screening crimes similar to stalking, or where stalking behaviours may be present as part of a course of conduct, like harassment, malicious communications and breaches of orders.

We think there is potential for artificial intelligence to play a role in crime screening. It could help improve accuracy and efficiency in identifying stalking and risks within stalking cases.

Recommendation 24: To the NPCC lead for stalking and harassment
By 27 March 2025, begin working with the NPCC lead for artificial intelligence to explore how artificial intelligence could be used to support the police response to stalking. This should include developing a proof of concept for using artificial intelligence to screen incidents and crimes to help identify stalking and risks associated with stalking.

Multi-agency approaches offer a promising model for tackling stalking – more could be done to make sure partners work more effectively together

We found several forces had implemented multi-agency approaches to tackle stalking. The forces have taken different approaches, but these usually involve dedicated police stalking teams working alongside victim advocates, healthcare, probation and other professionals to tackle stalking offending.

An evaluation of three multi-agency stalking intervention programme (MASIP) sites published in 2020 indicated that they had a positive impact on outcomes in stalking investigations. One of the three evaluated sites is the harm reduction unit in Cheshire (detailed on the College of Policing’s practice bank).

We heard from police and stalking advocates about the value multi-agency teams provide as hubs of expertise that support the management of risk to victims and interventions with perpetrators to disrupt offending.

We also heard that fully integrated multi-agency teams can be expensive to establish and resource. However, there may be opportunities for forces to collaborate to implement multi-agency approaches in a more cost-effective way. Some forces had also developed other ways to work with partners, such as running regular multi-agency stalking meetings to discuss high-risk cases.

We are concerned that forces may be missing other opportunities to work with partners. Recent changes to statutory guidance on multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) require agencies to consider managing more stalking offenders under MAPPA. Officers and staff we spoke to in the fieldwork forces were not aware of these changes and most fieldwork forces did not refer to MAPPA in their local stalking policies.

Recommendation 25: To chief constables, PCCs and their mayor equivalents
By 27 March 2025, explore opportunities to improve how their force works with partners to contribute to a multi-agency response to stalking. This should include considering:
  • How the force works in partnership with healthcare, the CPS, probation services and other criminal justice partners to manage stalking perpetrators and address their behaviour.
  • Whether and how they should collaborate with other forces to effectively and efficiently contribute to multi-agency partnerships on stalking.
  • How multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) are being used to effectively manage stalking offenders.

There are very few stalking-specific perpetrator intervention programmes available – it is not clear what interventions work for stalking perpetrators, or what the minimum requirements for provision should be

We encountered a small number of forces involved in providing interventions for stalking perpetrators. These include the forces involved in the MASIP pilots.

The 2020 evaluation of the three initial pilot MASIP sites said it was too early to draw firm conclusions about the effect of the perpetrator interventions the MASIPs provided. It said more stable funding arrangements were required and further evaluation was necessary to understand the effect of these approaches.

Limited availability of stalking-specific perpetrator intervention programmes means the police rarely ask courts to consider whether attendance on a perpetrator programme should be a condition of an SPO.

The availability of intervention programmes for stalking perpetrators is currently largely dependent on specific Home Office funding. The Home Office is funding various projects through a £39 million fund for domestic abuse and stalking intervention programmes.

Individual projects may include plans for evaluation. However, we think more work is required to better understand and share what works in relation to stalking perpetrator interventions. This would better inform decisions about what interventions should be available and how these services should be used by the police and its partners.

Recommendation 26: To the Home Office
For its current funding programme for domestic abuse and stalking interventions:
  • Evaluate the stalking specific perpetrator intervention projects and publish details of the findings so this information is available to policing and other services working with stalking perpetrators.
  • If necessary, commission further research to inform the commissioning and delivery of stalking perpetrator intervention programmes.
  • Consider developing standards and providing funding for stalking perpetrator intervention programmes based on the available evidence, in partnership with the Ministry of Justice.

Responding to our recommendations and monitoring progress

We have asked chief constables and the organisations subject to recommendations to respond to us within 56 days. We have also asked chief constables to publish an action plan on their websites explaining how they will respond to the recommendations we made to them. We hope this will aid transparency about the police response to this super‑complaint.

We have asked the NPCC to gather details of what forces have achieved after six months and, within a further three months, share a national summary that we will publish. This will make sure our organisations, the National Stalking Consortium, and the public can see policing’s progress against our recommendations.

Recommendation 27: To bodies subject to recommendations
By 22 November 2024 (56 days from publication), write to HMICFRS, the IOPC and the College of Policing setting out their response to the recommendations made to them. Chief constables should direct their response to the NPCC which should provide a collective response on behalf of all police forces. PCCs and their mayor equivalents should direct their response to the APCC which should provide a collective response on their behalf.

 

Recommendation 28: To chief constables
By 22 November 2024 (56 days from publication), publish on their force website an action plan which explains what their force will do in response to each of the recommendations made to them and send the NPCC a link to where this action plan can be found.

By 27 March 2025 (six months from publication) provide an update to the NPCC describing the progress they have made against their action plans.

 

Recommendation 29: To the NPCC
By 27 June 2025 (nine months from publication), share a report summarising the progress forces have made against their action plans with HMICFRS, the IOPC and the College of Policing. This report will be published on the GOV.UK police super‑complaints webpage.

Background: Stalking and the police response

Stalking does not have a clear definition in law. However, it is commonly described across various guidance as “a pattern of unwanted, fixated and obsessive behaviour which is intrusive”. It is this combination of factors that means that stalking presents particular risks around repeat victimisation (stalking sometimes continues for many years) and escalation of behaviours. This includes escalation to serious physical harm and homicide in some cases. An overview of research around the links between stalking and serious harm and homicide is included at annex B (PDF document).

The psychological harm caused can be significant for both in-person and online stalking, even when it does not lead to physical harm. Stalking has been described as a crime of psychological terror, leaving victims feeling constantly unsafe and fearful.

The scale of stalking

Stalking is a crime that affects many people. Figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (the Crime Survey) indicate that an estimated 1,639,000 people aged 16 and over were victims of stalking in the year ending March 2023.

The Crime Survey shows that stalking is experienced by women and men of all ages and backgrounds. However, stalking is a gendered crime, with women more likely to be victims of stalking than men. The Crime Survey shows that in the year ending March 2023, an estimated 21% of women and 9% of men in England and Wales had experienced stalking in their lifetime (since the age of 16).

In the Crime Survey, members of the public are asked directly about their experience of crime. Therefore, the survey can capture crimes that have not been reported to the police. The Crime Survey asks members of the public questions about whether they have experienced repeated unwanted contact that caused fear, alarm or distress. This could be stalking but may also capture behaviours that would not fall within the description of stalking as a crime in law. Even taking this into account, the Crime Survey data (when compared with stalking crimes recorded by police) suggests that many incidents of stalking go unreported. Research indicates that victims who do report stalking to the police have often experienced stalking for some time before contacting the police, and often only do so when the stalking escalates, or when they are afraid it will escalate (this research evidence is discussed in our rapid evidence review at annex C (PDF document)).

Stalking law

A specific crime of stalking was introduced in England and Wales in 2012 through an amendment to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Before this, stalking behaviours could be prosecuted as a crime of harassment. Campaigners argued that this did not provide sufficient recognition of the nature of offending and the devastating effect that stalking can have on victims. The introduction of stalking offences in 2012 was an important step forward in recognising the serious nature of the offending and the potential devastating effect on victims.

These changes introduced:

Section 2A offence of stalking

Section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes it an offence to “pursue a course of conduct” that “amounts to stalking”. Section 2A is a summary only offence (a less serious offence that is heard in a magistrate’s court). It carries a maximum sentence of 26 weeks imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Section 2A sets out that a course of conduct (related behaviour on two or more occasions) amounts to stalking if:

This means the crimes of stalking and harassment are linked and overlap under the law.

Behaviours associated with stalking are not specifically defined.

Section 4A stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress

Section 4A stalking is a more serious offence than section 2A stalking. It is an either-way offence (it can be heard in either a magistrates’ or Crown Court) and carries a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 applies when stalking causes either:

  • on at least two occasions, the victim to fear that violence will be used against them
  • serious alarm or distress which has a “substantial adverse effect” on the usual day to day activities of the victim

Section 4A only applies when the suspect knows or ought to know that they have caused fear of violence or serious alarm or distress that has had a substantial adverse effect.

Stalking protection orders

The Stalking Protection Act 2019 introduced stalking protection orders (SPOs) and interim SPOs. These came into operation in January 2020. These are civil orders which can be made by magistrates following an application by the police.

SPOs place specific prohibitions and/or positive requirements on those subject to them. These are intended to protect victims from risks and harm associated with stalking.

Examples of prohibitions might include:

  • prohibiting the person from entering certain locations or defined areas where the victim lives or frequently visits
  • prohibiting the person from contacting the victim by any means, including telephone, post, email, text message or social media

Examples of positive requirements might include:

  • attending an appropriate perpetrator intervention programme
  • surrendering devices
  • providing the police with access to social media accounts, mobile phones, computers, tablets and passwords

The Home Office has issued statutory guidance for the police regarding SPOs. It sets out that an SPO can be sought at any point during a stalking case. Including following the conviction or acquittal of a perpetrator and in cases that do not meet the threshold to charge. The courts must not use SPOs as an alternative to prosecution, but they can be used to complement the prosecution of a stalking offence.

The police can apply to a magistrate for an interim SPO in cases where there is an “immediate risk of harm”, but more time is needed to gather the information to apply for a full SPO, or where the court is unable to provide a full order in time. Interim SPOs allow for prohibitions and requirements to be placed on a stalker while the police are preparing an application for a full order.

Breaching an SPO is a criminal offence which carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment.

Stalking crimes recorded by police

There were 117,049 stalking crimes recorded by police in the year ending March 2023. The number of stalking crimes recorded by police has increased significantly over the last ten years. However, during this time there have been a number of changes to the Home Office crime recording rules for frontline officers and staff (the crime recording rules) which have influenced the recording of stalking crimes.

Figure 1: Police recorded stalking crimes in England and Wales between the year ending March 2015 and the year ending March 2023

A line chart showing that the number of recorded stalking crimes has increased significantly over the last 10 years. The number grew from 2,885 in 2014-15 to 10,396 in 2017-18, when there was a change to the crime recording rules. It then grew again to 33,361 in 2019-20, when there was another change. The number continued to increase, and in 2022-23 the police recorded 117,049 stalking crimes.

Source: Home Office data published by the Office for National Statistics

Changes to the crime recording rules over this period have influenced how stalking crimes must be recorded by police. Before April 2018, where a stalking crime was reported together with a more serious crime in terms of sentencing, the principal crime rule meant that the stalking crime did not need to be recorded.

The crime recording rules changed in April 2018 and required that where stalking was reported at the same time as another crime, then both the “conduct crime” (such as stalking) and the other crime should be recorded. This change corresponds to an increase in recorded stalking crimes.

In May 2023 the requirement to record two crimes when stalking and another crime was reported was removed. Police are now required to assess which is the most serious crime reported in terms of impact, and only record that. In most cases this will be the conduct crime, such as stalking. Therefore, this change may not have a significant effect on the number of stalking crimes recorded, though it is too early to assess what the effect has been. We discuss concerns about this change to the crime recording rules later in this report (see Addressing the impact of changes to the crime recording rules for frontline officers and staff).

An additional change to the crime recording rules was made in April 2020. This change required that:

“All cases where a course of conduct is reported between a victim and their former partner (except where one or both parties is aged under 16) must be recorded as stalking unless the [force crime registrar] is satisfied that the matter amounts to harassment in law only.”

This change corresponds with a large increase in the number of stalking crimes recorded. This also corresponds with an increase in the proportion of stalking cases that are flagged as domestic abuse as illustrated in the graph below (figure 2). The police are required to flag crimes that involve domestic abuse.

The number of recorded stalking crimes that are not flagged as domestic abuse has not increased in the same way over this period. This includes stalking by people who are known to the victim, such as acquaintances or work colleagues as well as stalking by strangers.

Figure 2: Police recorded stalking crimes and police recorded stalking crimes flagged as domestic abuse in England and Wales between the year ending March 2019 and the year ending March 2023

A line chart showing that the number of recorded stalking crimes increased from 20,095 in 2018-19 to 117,049 in 2022-23. The number of stalking cases flagged as domestic abuse has followed the same trend, increasing from 12,129 to 97,873 over the same period.

Source: Home Office data published by the Office for National Statistics in data tables showing police recorded stalking crimes and police flagged domestic abuse crimes

Strategic leadership and oversight of the police response to stalking

National strategic approach to stalking

The Home Secretary included violence against women and girls (VAWG) within the strategic policing requirement in February 2023, putting VAWG on a par with terrorism and serious and organised crime in terms of national threats to public safety.

Stalking falls within the strategic focus on VAWG. It is a gendered crime which is disproportionately perpetrated by men against women. In July 2024 the NPCC and the College of Policing published a national policing statement on violence against women and girls which provides an assessment of the threat VAWG poses to public safety. The statement identifies stalking and harassment as one of five high-harm and high‑volume threat areas that policing will focus on over the next year. This clear focus on stalking is a welcome development.

The focus on VAWG across policing is an important opportunity to ensure improvements in the police response to stalking. The NPCC and the College of Policing have produced a delivery framework (PDF document) and self-assessment template (PDF document) as part of the national strategic focus on VAWG. This provides guidance to police forces on how they can plan, resource and evaluate their work to keep women and girls safe, using a four-P model (prepare, protect, pursue and prevent). Forces should be using this framework to guide their strategic response to VAWG offences, including stalking. This should involve police leaders, PCCs or their mayor equivalents, and other oversight and accountability mechanisms such as Local Criminal Justice Boards.

The recommendations that we have made to policing throughout this investigation, draw on and support the principles in this framework.

National police leadership on stalking

Police leadership on stalking is provided nationally by Deputy Chief Constable Paul Mills. DCC Mills has been the NPCC lead for stalking and harassment since 2018. His appointment to this role closely followed the 2017 publication of the HMICFRS and HMCPSI Living in fear inspection report on the police and CPS response to stalking. DCC Mills told us that his work as NPCC lead has focussed over this period on helping to make sure that policing delivers against the recommendations in the Living in fear inspection report.

DCC Mills chairs a national stalking and harassment offences working group. This is attended by police regional stalking leads, statutory partners across the criminal justice system and representatives from the National Stalking Consortium (the Consortium) and academia. Complementing this is a tactical working group involving regional stalking leads, and a separate academic knowledge exchange group focussing on opportunities for academic research into stalking and the police response. Members of the super-complaint investigation team attended the national working group throughout this investigation. In the super-complaint, the Consortium refer to the effective working relationship they have with the NPCC lead. We also saw this in the working group meetings we observed.

These working group meetings discuss local and national issues, challenges around the police response to stalking, and share updates from policing and its partners. The meetings are used to share information about new initiatives and approaches taken by different forces to improve the police response to stalking.

Throughout this investigation we have heard about different innovative and promising practice in different forces. We have worked with forces to share some of these examples on the College of Policing’s practice bank so information is widely available. These practice bank examples are highlighted throughout this report.

We encourage the NPCC and forces to build on the work of the national stalking and harassment offences working group as an information sharing forum by using the College of Policing practice bank to share practice related to stalking. We would encourage the NPCC lead to work closely with the College of Policing to continue to identify innovative and promising practice that can be formally shared in this way, promoting adoption of good practice across different forces.

Strategic approach to stalking in forces

Forces’ strategic understanding of the stalking problem and the police response in their area

An effective response to stalking requires a good understanding of the stalking problem in each policing area, and a clear strategic approach to tackling this.

Each police force in England and Wales has an elected local policing body. This includes Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and mayor equivalents. These set the police and crime objectives for their area through a police and crime plan.

Most forces told us, in response to the force self-assessment survey, that their force’s police and crime plan included specific reference to stalking. Many forces reported that stalking was referenced under the force’s strategic focus on violence against women and girls. A number of forces responded that stalking fell within their strategic focus on domestic abuse. Where this is the case, there may be a risk that stalking in a non‑domestic abuse context is not given sufficient strategic consideration.

Despite including stalking in police and crime plans, we found that forces do not always have clear mechanisms for strategic oversight in relation to stalking crimes. We found that some of the fieldwork forces did not have a problem profile or some other form of product that helped the force understand the nature of stalking in their area. Even when forces did have a product, it was not as comprehensive as it could have been. For example, we found gaps in analysis around victim or offender profiles.

We found that none of the HMICFRS fieldwork forces had estimated how demand from online or digitally enabled stalking was likely to change in the future. We also found that some fieldwork forces combined stalking crimes with harassment crimes in force management statements which set out current and predicted future demand. Combining these does not recognise that the demand from the two types of crimes may be very different. For example, stalking cases may require resources to apply for stalking protection orders.

We have made a recommendation later in the report that chief constables take action to make sure they have appropriate mechanisms to fully understand the scale and types of stalking behaviour within their force.

Oversight, assurance and improvement work relating to stalking

Responses to the force self-assessment survey also revealed gaps in important information that could help forces understand how well they were responding to reports of stalking. Only 15 out of 43 forces were able to tell us roughly what percentage of stalking victims they referred to specialist stalking support services. Some forces were unclear about how many officers and staff had received required training on stalking. And many forces could not provide information on how significant the online element of stalking is across their stalking caseload.

We also found evidence that new developments and initiatives to improve the response to victims in stalking cases – such as the introduction of stalking protection orders or the piloting of a stalking screening tool – had been poorly implemented across many forces. However, there were also positive indicators. Some forces had invested in dedicated stalking officers and staff, or innovative approaches to improving the response in their area. These are discussed in more detail throughout this report.

Evidence from the fieldwork and force self-assessment survey indicates that many forces are undertaking some audit and assurance activities around the quality of the police response to stalking. This covers areas including crime recording, quality of investigations, and victim satisfaction. However, our fieldwork indicates that this type of assurance activity is sometimes infrequent or does not always result in actions to address issues that are identified. For example, in 2022/23, only two of the six HMICFRS fieldwork forces had conducted a survey of stalking victims to gather their views about the service they received from police.

The NPCC and College of Policing VAWG self-assessment template (PDF document) emphasises the importance of involving victims to inform change and improve practice. We think that more needs to be done to make sure that victims’ voices inform how police respond to stalking and how leaders understand the quality of the police response. This is included in our recommendation to chief constables below.

Recommendation to chief constables
By 27 March 2025 make sure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to fully understand the scale and types of stalking behaviour within their force and the effectiveness of their response. This should align with the VAWG national delivery framework (PDF document). Mechanisms should include:
  • Problem profiles using police data and intelligence and other sources of information to ensure that the full extent of stalking is well understood. This could include information sharing with local victims’ services and other public services, and national and local statistics.
  • Regular assurance work such as audits to better understand the force response and make improvements where appropriate, including monitoring the use of SPOs, investigation outcomes and the quality of investigations.
  • Ways to regularly receive feedback from victims, such as victim surveys.
  • Force management statements which reflect current and future demand from stalking.

(This is recommendation 11 in our summary of findings and recommendations.)

Availability of data to support transparency and scrutiny of the police response to stalking

The publication of police crime data is an important mechanism supporting police transparency and accountability. It allows the public, academics, third sector organisations, and policing and government to better understand reported crime and the police response. It is fundamental to holding police forces to account.

In the super-complaint, the Consortium has called for the published data of stalking crimes recorded by police to differentiate between the section 2A and section 4A offences. We support this proposal for improved transparency through publishing more detailed data relating to stalking crimes and we make a recommendation about this below.

The Consortium has also called for criminal justice agencies to implement a unified recording system which would allow the journey of a victim to be followed through the criminal justice system. We have not explored the practicalities involved with this proposal as this extends beyond the scope of this super-complaint, which is limited to considering the police response to stalking. However, we support this ambition for cross-organisational victim-centred data reporting. And we are aware that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office is co-leading a criminal justice system data improvement programme, which aims to improve how data held by different criminal justice agencies is shared, used, and managed.

Data showing police recording of section 2A and section 4A stalking offences and stalking where there is a domestic abuse context

There are gaps in the data that is readily available to the public about the criminal justice response to stalking. The Office for National Statistics publishes data on police recorded stalking offences for England and Wales as a whole. The Office for National Statistics release on crime in England and Wales includes the number of police recorded stalking and harassment offences (all stalking, harassment and malicious communications offences). It also includes information about people’s experiences of stalking based on responses to the Crime Survey for England and Wales. In addition, the number of domestic-abuse related stalking offences recorded by the police in England and Wales is available in the Office for National Statistics release on domestic abuse prevalence and trends.

The Home Office publishes more detailed information on the number of police recorded stalking offences in its open data tables on police recorded crime and outcomes. Members of the public can use the tables to calculate the total the number of stalking crimes recorded by each police force in England and Wales from 2012/13 onwards.

The Home Office also collects information about numbers of stalking offences recorded by each force as section 2A and section 4A stalking. This ‘sub-offence’ code data is supplied to the Home Office Data Hub which allows an automated capture of crime data (via direct extracts from forces’ own crime recording systems). However, this data is not published. Additionally, the Home Office collects data on whether stalking offences were related to domestic abuse. This data is published in the Office for National Statistics release on domestic abuse prevalence and trends at the national level only.

One of the concerns raised by the Consortium in the super-complaint relates to whether the police are appropriately recognising and investigating stalking as the more serious section 4A offence, when it is appropriate to do so. It is difficult to compare how forces are applying the distinction between section 2A and section 4A stalking crimes and to assess whether this is done consistently, when the published data does not show these offences separately.

The NPCC lead for stalking and harassment also expressed concern about the lack of detail in the published data on stalking. DCC Mills commented that it is more difficult for the NPCC or individual forces to compare approaches between forces to help inform improvements because disaggregated data is not easily available.

The Home Office provided data from the data hub as part of this investigation. It shows the number of stalking crimes recorded by force under section 2A and section 4A. Our investigation shows that this data can help to inform the understanding of stalking and the police response to this crime, including highlighting areas of inconsistent practice across policing. We think that there would be value in the Home Office publishing this level of disaggregated data in its open data tables on police recorded crime and outcomes.

Recommendation to the Home Office
From the next data release onwards, publish police recorded crime data so it shows section 2A and section 4A stalking crimes separately.

(This is recommendation 8 in our summary of findings and recommendations.)

Data relating to stalking protection orders

DCC Mills, NPCC lead for stalking and harassment, also highlighted problems with the availability of data on stalking protection orders (SPOs). He told us that limited published data on the use of SPOs by forces made it difficult to get an accurate overview of which forces are using SPOs, how they are using them and how often, and success rates where applications for SPOs are made to the courts by police.

The Home Office and HM Courts and Tribunals Service published data about SPOs alongside the Home Office review of the initial implementation of SPOs in 2022. This included information on the number of SPO applications the police made to magistrates, the number issued by magistrates, and the number of times courts were notified of an SPO breach. However, further courts data on SPOs has not been published since this time.

HMICFRS collects data on SPOs from forces as part of its inspection work, but this data is not usually published. We discuss this data in more detail in our chapter on SPOs.

The Home Office told us that it was working with the Ministry of Justice to make publication of courts data about SPOs more routine and aligned to other published data about court orders. We welcome and support this action to improve the transparency about the use of SPOs.

Recommendation to the Ministry of Justice
Before the end of 2024, begin routinely publishing, within criminal courts statistics, data regarding the number of interim and full SPOs applied for, granted and breached.

(This is recommendation 9 in our summary of findings and recommendations.)

Training on stalking for police officers and staff

“I can understand [in relation to] training… not everybody can be an expert on identifying this sort of crime, but [police officers and staff should] at least have an appreciation to say something’s not right here.”

(Stalking victim – interview)

College of Policing curriculum and stalking or harassment e-learning package

In the super-complaint, the Consortium has called on the College of Policing to mandate specialist stalking training for all officers that deal with stalking.

The College of Policing sets learning standards for English and Welsh policing in the national policing curriculum. Police forces are responsible for providing training and learning to officers and staff that meets the expectations in this curriculum. Stalking is included in the public protection part of the national policing curriculum.

The College of Policing has an e-learning package on stalking or harassment. Forces can use this to support their delivery of the public protection national policing curriculum. The e-learning can be used as standalone training or as part of a package of training. The content can also be used as the basis for classroom training. The stalking or harassment e-learning package provides information about:

This e-learning is aimed at police officers, including police specials, PCSOs and police staff. The e-learning package is available to all forces. Forces can also develop their own training materials and may collaborate with local victims’ services or other experts to co-provide training.

During the super-complaint investigation, the College of Policing updated the content of this stalking e-learning package. Further details about this and other work the College of Policing is undertaking around training on stalking are provided at the end of this chapter.

Training on stalking provided to officers and staff

We asked forces about the training they provide on stalking to officers and staff in our force self-assessment survey. All forces reported providing some form of training on stalking. However, the evidence from our investigation indicates that training provision on stalking is very variable across different forces. Worryingly, some police officers and staff we spoke to in our focus groups reported feeling poorly prepared to identify and respond to stalking effectively.

Some forces use the College of Policing’s stalking or harassment e-learning package, but uptake is relatively low. In response to the force self-assessment survey, more than half (25 out of 43) of forces stated that they did not require their officers or staff to complete the stalking or harassment e-learning.

Most forces reported that they provide some type of locally developed and delivered training on stalking in addition to, or instead of, the College of Policing e-learning. Forces described this training as covering issues such as identifying stalking and distinguishing stalking from harassment. However, we were unable to assess from the survey responses how closely this locally developed training followed the national policing curriculum or the content from the College of Policing e-learning package.

Concerningly, some forces provided responses to the force self-assessment survey which suggest that training on stalking was not required for a significant proportion of officers and staff. Some forces reported poor completion of the training that was available (less than 50% of those required to complete the training did so). Some other forces did not know how many officers or staff had completed the training that had been set. This is a concern as understanding whether officers and staff have received appropriate training, is important information about the force capability in terms of its response to stalking. This is relevant to forces’ strategic oversight of the police response to stalking which we have discussed earlier in this report in our chapter on strategic leadership and oversight.

Some force responses to the self-assessment survey outlined more comprehensive approaches to training. This included examples of forces using a range of different training approaches, tailored to different levels of expertise required across different roles. Further details and examples are in the summary of survey responses included at annex E.

We also found variability in the training provision across the six HMICFRS fieldwork forces. All the training we reviewed included an input on how to tell the difference between harassment and stalking. However, the training material we reviewed lacked content on police practice that sits alongside or after the initial identification of stalking. For example, in some forces, the training did not include information about how to record stalking in accordance with the Home Office crime recording rules for frontline officers and staff (the crime recording rules). None of the training products in any of the fieldwork forces included reference to stalking victims’ entitlement to an enhanced service under the victims’ code (the victims’ code is discussed in further detail in our chapter on victim care). Only two of the six forces included adequate content in stalking training about breaches of protective orders in the context of stalking crimes, including when to treat these as further instances of stalking. It also appeared that all the fieldwork forces had not trained all relevant officers on stalking protection orders.

Training on stalking also provides an opportunity to explain local procedures and practice to officers and staff that they are required to follow to provide a good service to victims. The training materials we reviewed in our fieldwork forces did not always cover this. The policies themselves were also not always as comprehensive as they should be.

In our fieldwork, we also asked forces about the training provided to student officers. We found that the student officer training content varied from force to force. The fieldwork forces had not recently reviewed their student officer training and it was missing important information. For example, information about how to properly record stalking crimes.

Participants in our focus groups with police officers and staff all told us that they had received some initial basic training on recognising stalking and harassment. However, gaps in knowledge and inadequate training to understand stalking in practice were discussed at every level of seniority. This was particularly highlighted by the call handlers and frontline officers we spoke to. Supervisors also spoke about limited training for frontline officers regarding stalking:

“There’s pretty much nothing as a DC, or PC. Or as a DS.”

“In relation to training, I think there is a gap in relation to the responding officers.”

(Police focus group – supervisors)

The supervisors also told us that they did not necessarily receive additional training on stalking. This was seen as an issue as they may not always be able to guide or advise their officers appropriately.

“As a PC I just had standard inputs into… domestics and stuff like that and then… trying to identify what stalking was. As a Sergeant, I’ve had no further training on that, to be honest.”

(Police focus group – supervisors)

The victims and victim support service providers that we spoke to as part of this investigation also told us about their perceptions of the variability in police training on stalking.

The College of Policing is taking steps to update and further develop its training in relation to stalking (set out below). We also think that forces need to do more to make sure that appropriate training on stalking is provided to officers and staff who respond to and investigate stalking crimes. We have made a recommendation to chief constables about this at the end of this section.

Updates and further development of College of Policing training products

The College of Policing recognises that there is more it can do to support forces to make sure that officers and staff are appropriately equipped to respond to stalking. The College of Policing has commissioned the Open University to review the public protection national policing curriculum. The Open University’s work, the findings of this super-complaint investigation and other important reports such as the Casey Review and the Angiolini Inquiry will help inform the College of Policing’s new professionalising public protection programme, which is in development.

The College of Policing is committed to supporting forces to build the core safeguarding and investigation skills they need to provide excellence in public protection. The College of Policing will refresh its safeguarding programme for frontline officers, so it includes a standalone training module that covers stalking and harassment. It will also develop an entirely new educational programme for frontline supervisors. This will help ensure frontline supervisors have the skills and knowledge they need to support their officers to provide quality initial investigations for all crimes and help supervisors improve the oversight and scrutiny of investigations.

In the meantime, the College of Policing has updated its existing stalking or harassment e‑learning package which forces can use to support the delivery of the existing national policing curriculum. Our evidence indicates that forces could make better use of this e‑learning product as either standalone training and/or as the basis for locally developed and delivered training. Using the content from the College of Policing’s e-learning package can help forces make sure they are meeting the curriculum requirements in a robust and consistent way. This can then be complemented by inputs from specialists from outside of policing, such as stalking victim support services or academics that provide a different perspective.

The College of Policing and the NPCC will write to forces to make them aware of the updates to the e-learning and how the e-learning supports the delivery of learning outcomes related to stalking in the public protection national policing curriculum. Following this we are recommending that forces review and update their training provision relating to stalking.

Recommendation to chief constables
By 27 March 2025 review and update their learning and training provision relating to stalking so it:
  • Meets the learning outcomes on stalking within the public protection national policing curriculum.
  • Makes appropriate use of the stalking or harassment e-learning product developed by the College of Policing.
  • Uses the skills and knowledge of local victim advocates or others from outside policing with relevant expertise.
  • Includes information on relevant local policies and practice where necessary.
  • Is provided to the officers and staff who will most benefit from the learning.

Chief constables should also make sure that their policies and practice are reviewed and updated in accordance with the findings in the super-complaint investigation report.

(This is recommendation 10 in our summary of findings and recommendations.)

Dedicated stalking co-ordination roles and multi-agency working to respond to stalking

Dedicated stalking officers and staff

Some forces have dedicated stalking officers or staff who are responsible for coordinating their force’s response to stalking. They also provide support, assistance and advice on stalking cases. Our investigation found evidence that having dedicated stalking officers and staff can benefit a force’s response to stalking.

Five of the six fieldwork forces had at least one officer or staff member who worked exclusively on stalking crimes. In response to the force self-assessment survey, 14 out of 43 forces reported having some type of dedicated stalking teams or roles.

We spoke with a number of officers and staff members in dedicated stalking co-ordination roles during our fieldwork and focus groups with police officers and staff. These officers and staff members were well-informed and showed a good understanding of stalking. We saw good evidence of them working well with partner organisations.

Forces were asked to describe the types of activities that dedicated stalking officers and staff undertook in the force self-assessment survey. One response mentioned that the dedicated stalking unit in that force was developing an investigative function. However, in most cases, dedicated stalking units were small teams providing an advisory, support and co-ordination role. In some cases, this dedicated resource was complemented by a wider network of officers and staff that act as points of contact for advice and assistance with stalking cases.

The tasks undertaken by dedicated stalking officers and staff included:

  • Being a single and known point of expertise for the force (internally and externally).
  • Being a single point of contact for direct liaison with specialist stalking victim support services and advocates.
  • Daily checking of stalking crime reports. This was: to make sure all necessary investigative and safeguarding actions had been considered; to generate remedial actions; and to make sure that crimes had been correctly recorded as section 2A or section 4A stalking.
  • Daily checking of other behavioural crimes to make sure stalking crimes had not been missed or misidentified.
  • Screening of cases to identify those suitable for stalking protection orders and liaising with legal services.
  • Formulating and delivering training and guidance.
  • Supporting or reviewing risk assessments and providing safeguarding advice.
  • Developing and administering multi-agency responses to stalking. For example, as part of stalking clinics or multi-agency stalking intervention programmes.

The scope of these tasks and the exact numbers of officers involved varied between forces. In some cases, we were told that resource limitations significantly restricted the work of these roles. This meant that intervention and support could not be provided for all stalking cases, or advice provided on cases could not be followed up.

The following is an example of the structure and responsibilities of a dedicated stalking team from our investigation fieldwork:

Promising practice – West Midlands Police – early awareness stalking intervention (EASI) team

West Midlands Police had a dedicated stalking team – the early awareness stalking intervention (EASI) team – consisting of six officers and staff and two supervisors.

One of the roles of the team was to perform daily searches on the crime and custody systems to find cases of stalking that had not been recognised among other behavioural crimes. The team then placed an entry on the crime record to alert the investigating officers and their supervisors.

The team also provided other written advice to investigating officers. This included information about:

The stalking triage clinic was a multi-agency meeting that took place every two weeks. The purpose of the meeting was to identify and manage stalking perpetrators and coordinate support for victims.

In the force self-assessment survey, we asked forces to suggest how the police response to stalking could be improved. Close to half of the responses suggested dedicated stalking officers, co-ordination units, or stalking clinics as a way of improving the police response to stalking. Forces which had dedicated stalking officers and staff reflected on the value they provide:

“We feel strongly that our strong charging performance is a result of the role of [our multi-agency stalking unit] and their crime screening role.”

“The provision of access to specialists and the opportunity to discuss cases is really helpful… and has created a much more open dialogue about the use of SPO’s and other protection measures.”

(Force responses to the force self-assessment survey)

We also heard from stalking victim support service providers about the central function that dedicated stalking officers and staff play in supporting effective working relationships with stalking support service providers and advocates. This collaborative working is important in making sure that best use is made of the essential support provided by these services. This is discussed in more detail in the chapter on victim care and support.

The benefits of dedicated stalking units, where these work closely with stalking support services or advocates, is also evidenced in research evaluations of specialist stalking teams. For example, an evaluation of a specialist domestic abuse cyber stalking unit, Taylor-Dunn and Erol (2022), found high levels of victim engagement and satisfaction where the specialist unit was involved. This included a dedicated victim advocate co‑located with the police team. The evaluation also pointed to positive results around police action to safeguard victims. Of the 21 cases identified by the evaluation which were successfully prosecuted, all had a restraining order imposed.

Forces with dedicated officers and staff take different approaches to how these roles or teams are structured, the tasks they complete, and training or skills requirements for officers and staff in these roles. More could be done to share details of different models and their benefits. This would help all forces consider whether such an approach could work in their force to improve the police response to stalking.

Recommendation to the NPCC lead for stalking and harassment
By 27 March 2025, to collate and disseminate information to chief constables on the dedicated stalking co-ordination roles that exist. This information should support chief constables to consider whether and how dedicated stalking officers and staff can be used to support the police response to stalking.

The information collated and disseminated should include (but not be limited to) details of:

  • Skills and experiences of dedicated stalking officers and staff, and any extra training provided to them by the force.
  • Day-to-day responsibilities of dedicated stalking officers and staff, and how these are aligned to force priorities.
  • How dedicated stalking officers and staff are organised within force operational command structures.
  • How dedicated stalking officers and staff contribute to multi-agency working which supports victims and provides interventions to perpetrators.

(This is recommendation 21 in the summary of findings and recommendations.)

 

Recommendation to chief constables
By 27 September 2025, using the information collated by the NPCC lead under recommendation 21, to consider whether and how dedicated stalking officers and staff, or other subject matter experts, can be used to add value and support the force response to stalking.

(This is recommendation 22 in the summary of findings and recommendations.)

Multi-agency working to support the police response to stalking

Several forces have implemented multi-agency approaches to tackle stalking. Forces have taken different approaches, but these usually involve dedicated police stalking teams working alongside victim advocates, healthcare, probation and other professionals to tackle stalking and assess and manage risk.

We heard from representatives of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust about the multi-agency stalking intervention programme (MASIP), which they have been involved in designing and delivering. The approach involves co-located integrated working between different agencies from the start of the response to a report of stalking. It is focused on the management of the risk to the victim, as well as looking at tailored interventions to address the offending. This includes considering stalking protection orders and health interventions for the perpetrator where appropriate. In the super-complaint the Consortium calls for all police forces and PCCs to implement the MASIP approach.

A pilot which involved three MASIP sites was established with initial funding from the Home Office Police Transformation Fund. An evaluation of the pilot sites was undertaken by University College London in 2020. This found that early evidence indicated a positive influence on investigations and outcomes in stalking investigations. However, the evaluation reflected that it was too early to draw firm conclusions, particularly regarding the effect on perpetrator interventions. We discuss the need for further evaluation around perpetrator intervention programmes in the final chapter of this report. And we have made a recommendation to the Home Office in relation to this.

One of the three evaluated MASIP approaches was the harm reduction unit in Cheshire. This has since been included on the College of Policing practice bank as an example of promising practice.

All participants in our focus group with stalking victim support service providers agreed that the most successful responses to stalking by the police were multi-agency responses.

“Some of the best case examples we would have would be where a case has come into an area where there is a multi-agency response. The victim has been able to work with an advocate from day one to look at her home security and to negotiate with her employer about her routes to work and all of the things that she hadn’t thought of until an advocate… told her that this might be an option for her. Then we’ve got the police in the same conversation, considering the stalking protection order at the earliest opportunity so we can get some intervention and mental health professionals saying “actually from what we’ve read here it sounds like maybe we need to get some intervention for this perpetrator”. And then of course if we get it to a point where it’s progressed to a charge in a court case, we’ve got probation there writing a pre-sentencing report having been involved in all of these conversations. So all of our best examples really would be with that multi agency response.”

(Stalking victim support service provider – focus group)

We also heard from police, in the force self-assessment survey and in our focus groups with police officers and staff, about the value multi-agency teams provide. They were seen as hubs of expertise that support the management of risk to victims and interventions with perpetrators to disrupt offending.

However, we also heard that fully integrated multi-agency teams can be expensive to establish and resource long term. We found that some forces had developed other ways to work with partners, like running regular multi-agency stalking meetings to discuss high‑risk cases. An example of an alternative approach is the West Midlands Police EASI programme. This is described in more detail in our discussion of dedicated stalking teams and perpetrator programmes. It has also been included on the College of Policing practice bank as an example of innovative practice.

There is a lack of clarity across policing about what the expectations around multi-agency working in relation to stalking mean in practice, or the relative value of different approaches. However, as a minimum, collaborative working between police and victim support services and advocates should be seen as central to an effective response to stalking. We have made a recommendation in relation to this in our chapter on victim care. We have also proposed further evaluation of perpetrator programmes, which are usually facilitated by multi-agency approaches in our chapter on stalking perpetrator intervention programmes.

Overall, we think that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that multi-agency approaches should be considered by forces as a promising model for improving the police response to stalking. This could involve collaboration between forces to share costs. In the previous section, we have made a recommendation to the NPCC lead for stalking and harassment to collate and disseminate information on dedicated stalking teams and this should include examples of different multi-agency approaches. Forces should consider this information and the examples included on the College of Policing practice bank when considering what type of approach might work in their area.

Existing frameworks for multi-agency working to manage stalking perpetrators and offenders

There are also opportunities for policing to develop and build on the existing frameworks for multi-agency working.

Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) are well established and exist in all police force areas. Through these multi-agency arrangements, the police, probation and prison services work together with other agencies to assess and manage violent and sexual offenders to protect the public from harm.

Category 2 MAPPA applies to offenders who have been convicted of certain violent and sexual offences (including stalking) and have been sentenced to 12 months or more in custody (or are detained or transferred to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983). Category 3 MAPPA includes other dangerous offenders who do not fall within category 2. This applies to a person who has been cautioned for or convicted of an offence that indicates they are capable of causing serious harm and requires multi-agency management.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service published revised MAPPA guidance in March 2023 which strengthened the guidance in relation to the management of stalking offenders. The guidance now states that:

“Those with convictions for stalking or who display stalking behaviours must also be considered for referral to Category 3 if they do not fall into Category 2 management.”

The updates to the MAPPA guidance are welcome as they provide for more stalking offenders to be managed under this established multi-agency process. However, at the time of our investigation it did not appear that these changes had been effectively communicated to all of the police personnel responsible for tackling stalking.

Forces may not have updated their own policies and approaches to take account of this recent change to guidance. Indeed, only one of the six fieldwork forces’ stalking policies contained any reference to MAPPA and this only contained general information.

The NPCC Lead for stalking and harassment has since written to forces, in July 2024, to highlight the changes to the MAPPA guidance in relation to the management of stalking offenders.

The College of Policing is taking further action to develop its APP on stalking or harassment. This will include developments to provide clearer links to the MAPPA guidance. It will also provide clearer links to the College of Policing advice on identification, assessment and management of serial or potentially dangerous domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators (PDF document) which also highlights the importance of multi‑agency responses.

The 2024-2027 NPCC VAWG delivery framework (PDF document) sets out that policing should focus on identifying and tackling VAWG perpetrators and their behaviours, focusing on repeat and high harm perpetrators. In the self-assessment template for forces (PDF document) that supports this framework, the indicators of effective performance around targeting VAWG perpetrators include that the:

“Force uses integrated offender management structures, multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC) and multi-agency stalking intervention programmes (MASIP) to reduce the risk posed by VAWG perpetrators.”

Our evidence indicates that more could be done across policing to meet these expectations. Multi-agency approaches could be used more effectively to support the police response to stalking and manage, intervene and disrupt dangerous stalking perpetrators and offenders.

Recommendation to chief constables and PCCs and their mayor equivalents
By 27 March 2025, explore opportunities to improve how their force works with partners to contribute to a multi-agency response to stalking. This should include considering:
  • How the force works in partnership with healthcare, the CPS, probation services and other criminal justice partners to manage stalking perpetrators and address their behaviour.
  • Whether and how they should collaborate with other forces to effectively and efficiently contribute to multi-agency partnerships on stalking.
  • How multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) are being used to effectively manage stalking offenders.

(This is recommendation 25 in our summary of findings and recommendations.)

Identifying and recording stalking crimes

“It should have immediately been recognised as a potential stalking case… It took too long to get to that point and when it got to that point, I felt reassured, I felt taken seriously and I felt more confident in the police. But it took too long to get there.”

(Stalking victim – interview)

Concerns raised in the super-complaint

The Consortium raises concerns in the super-complaint that the police are misidentifying stalking, and not recognising behaviours as stalking when victims first contact the police to report a crime. The Consortium refers to case studies and feedback from stalking advocates which suggest that police often respond to reported behaviours as single, unconnected incidents, treating the behaviours as different crimes such as malicious communications, criminal damage, threats to kill, or burglary, rather than stalking. The Consortium states that stalking is also commonly misidentified as harassment without taking into account the fixated and obsessive nature of the behaviours.

The Consortium also states that police are failing to treat breaches of protective orders as further instances of stalking where it would be appropriate to do so. This is another area of misidentification, which we discuss in this section of the report.

The Consortium states that there is a lack of understanding across policing about what behaviours constitute stalking, as well as evidence of police minimising or trivialising reports of stalking made by victims.

Summary of our findings

Concerns about the misidentification of stalking and inaccurate recording of stalking crimes were important findings in the HMICFRS and HMCPSI 2017 Living in fear inspection report. Since then, there has been a significant increase in the number of stalking crimes recorded by police. This is a positive indicator of improvements in the identification and recording of stalking crimes by police. However, there have been changes to Home Office crime recording rules for frontline officers and staff (the crime recording rules) which are likely to have contributed to this increase. Further details of these changes are in the background section of this report.

Our investigation found that the misidentification of stalking is still an issue across policing, despite increased numbers of stalking crimes recorded by police.

We think that greater clarity about what constitutes stalking across law and guidance will provide a better foundation for police to identify stalking and respond appropriately. We propose that the Home Office changes the existing criminal law relating to stalking in England and Wales. This should include changes to clarify how stalking is defined and consideration of the need for separate section 2A and 4A stalking offences.

However, even if the law is clarified, there will always be a risk of misidentification of stalking as stalking behaviours overlap with other criminal and non-criminal behaviours. Work has already been undertaken by the NPCC and College of Policing during this investigation to provide updated tools and guidance to support the police to identify stalking and take initial actions to address immediate risk. We also propose that forces consider the early screening of behavioural crimes and incidents to identify stalking cases that have been misidentified and risks that have been missed. This is an area which we think could be supported by the use of artificial intelligence.

Police misidentifying or failing to recognise stalking

It is crucial that police recognise stalking behaviours where these are reported, to make sure that the police response is appropriate to the seriousness of the crime and the risks to and effect on the victim. Accurate crime recording is an important part of this. The accurate recording of stalking crimes is the clearest indicator that stalking behaviours have been recognised by police. Crime recording decisions made by police also inform how police allocate investigative resources and make referrals to specialist victim support for individual cases. Data on recorded crime also informs the understanding of crime at a strategic level across forces.

The policing and non-policing stakeholders that we heard from throughout this investigation told us that stalking behaviours continue to be missed, dismissed, and not recorded or treated as stalking by the police. This is despite the increase in the number of stalking crimes recorded by police in recent years.

We heard examples from stalking victims and victim support service providers about cases where they felt that the police had misidentified stalking or dismissed stalking behaviours. One victim we interviewed explained:

“I got in touch with Protection Against Stalking… They totally agreed it was stalking. They tried, they did try their best with the police, but the police would not acknowledge it was stalking.”

(Stalking victim – interview)

Most police forces reported in the force self-assessment survey that misidentification of stalking was an issue in their force. While many forces told us they had got better at identifying stalking because of changes they had made, some forces told us that misidentification was still an issue despite their interventions.

HMICFRS undertook an analysis of its PEEL inspection findings between 2021 and 2022, looking at crime data integrity across 22 forces. This analysis showed that when stalking crimes are reported to the police, approximately:

  • three in five stalking crimes are classified and recorded correctly
  • three in 20 crimes of stalking are incorrectly recorded as other crimes, such as harassment
  • one in five crimes of stalking are not recorded at all

As part of the fieldwork for this super-complaint investigation, HMICFRS considered 60 cases recorded as malicious communications and found five of these should have been recorded as stalking. They assessed that an additional six cases should have been recorded as harassment and one should have been recorded as coercive and controlling behaviour. We cannot extrapolate from this to give a national estimated rate of mis-recording from these figures. However, malicious communications is a common crime, with 274,930 malicious communications crimes recorded in the year ending March 2023. Even if a small proportion of these crimes should have been identified and recorded as stalking, this could impact the service received by a significant number of victims.

The police’s response to a crime of malicious communications is likely to be different to their response to a crime of stalking. This is in terms of investigative resources allocated, recognition of risk, and level of support provided to the victim, including referral to specialist victim services. The following IOPC case is an example of the police misidentifying stalking as malicious communications and shows the effect this can have.

IOPC case example: Police response to stalking prior to the murder of the victim – involving police recording the crime as malicious communications

The victim contacted police about unwanted contact and threats made by her former partner. She said that her former partner had been abusive, controlling and had repeatedly threatened to assault her and her family members if she ever left him. She described him as obsessive and told police that she was fearful now she had left the relationship.

The crime report was recorded as a domestic-related malicious communications offence. The investigating officer noted on the crime report that stalking and harassment may be more appropriate crimes for investigation. However, the crime report was never re-categorised. It remained a malicious communications investigation throughout. The former partner had shown a pattern of violent behaviour towards women, particularly when a relationship did not work out. This information was included on his intelligence profile on the force’s computer system.

Further reports were made by the victim. These included increasingly threatening messages and counter-allegations made by her former partner. These did not appear to have been substantiated by the police. They were not treated as a pattern of behaviour that indicated stalking. The incorrect categorisation of the offences on the crime recording system meant that officers who spoke with the victim later did not have an accurate picture of the previous allegations or risk posed.

Following the IOPC investigation into this case, an officer was found to have a case to answer for misconduct. The matter was dealt with through the reflective practice review process (a management process focused on learning and development) and not the misconduct process. This is because the officer was new in service, still a probationary officer, and had not received support throughout the investigation.

Recognising breaches of protective orders as further instances of stalking

Breaches of protective orders should, in some cases, be treated as a further instance of stalking. In our