Witten evidence from Suzy Lamplugh Trust [EOV0021]

Suzy Lamplugh Trust has over 35 years’ experience supporting victims of violence and aggression including stalking and harassment, as well as campaigning for victims in policy and law. The trust has a long history of working within the Violence Against Women and Girls sector, dealing particularly with stalking and harassment, given that it is believed, and indeed the evidence suggests Suzy may have been targeted by a stalker. The National Stalking Helpline was set up by the Trust in 2010. It has helped over 65,000 victims since its inception and is the only service of its kind globally. 'We also run the London Stalking Support Service, the Advocacy and co-ordination elements of the London Stalking Threat Assessment centre, a National Advocacy service covering the whole of UK and a bespoke stalking advocacy service that runs across Cleveland PCC area.'

The Trust campaigns heavily to raise greater awareness of personal safety and stalking issues, demand systemic change where needed, influence public policy, and promote a society in which people are safer and feel safer.

Question 1: To what extent is there evidence that men who exhibit certain non-criminal behaviours, including online, go on to commit criminal offences against women and girls? The lack of recognition of risks associated with repeated unwanted behaviours which amount to stalking can result in an escalation of behaviours, both online and in person. This can then result in fixation manifesting over years and even decades This is illustrated by high profile cases such as the case of Matthew Hardy. Hardy would create multiple fake social media accounts to relentlessly message his victims and spread lies about them. Cheshire Constabulary alone was contacted about him over a 100 times by 62 different victims over 11 years.[1] As a result of his online behaviours being repeatedly not taken seriously, he was able to act with impunity for over a decade and stalked hundreds of victims.

Hardy’s case is an example of the way in which, when initial concerning behaviours online aren’t recognised as part of a pattern of stalking, risk is missed and the behaviours escalate. Cyberstalking has risen over the past few years, with all cases on the National Stalking Helpline now having online elements to them, compared to 80% prior to the pandemic.[2] The National Stalking Consortium, which the Trust chairs, regards online stalking as an extension of offline stalking and considers online contact by stalkers with their victims as one of the many tools in the stalker's arsenal which should therefore be treated with the same severity as offline behaviours.

A Suzy Lamplugh Trust report (Unmasking Stalking, 2021) demonstrated a rise in the frequency and intensity of online stalking behaviours since the outbreak of Covid-19.[3] The most common increases of these behaviours were, unsurprisingly, the easiest means of communication for the perpetrator: social media communication (35% increase), text messages (15%), online third-party contact (13%), emails (10%) unauthorised access to personal accounts (9%), vexatious complaints via digital communications (7%), hacking technology (7%), threats via digital communication (6%) and online contact in/via the workplace (6%).[4] These are all types of online behaviours which are often not treated as criminal offences in and of themselves but form a part of a pattern of criminal staking behaviour.

Despite the distress these online behaviours can have on victims, our Unmasking Stalking report found that only 17% of victims who experienced online stalking and reported the behaviours had had a satisfactory experience with the police. [5] The National Stalking Service 2022 survey found that 100% of stalking advocates stated that the refusal by the police to treat online behaviours as seriously as offline behaviours was either common (60%) or extremely common (40%).[6]

The case of Claire Waxman, Victims’ Commissioner for London, clearly demonstrates this point. Police and other criminal justice agencies repeatedly failed to respond to her stalking case over the years with the appropriate level of severity, resulting in a stalking case that has now spanned close to two decades in the courts. Ms. Waxman has experienced an extreme campaign of stalking, with behaviours including but not in any way limited to the stalker turning up at her work and home, making silent calls during the night, repeatedly searching her online and bringing vexatious claims against her in the civil courts. Most recently, in September 2022, the perpetrator was convicted for a 6th time for multiple breaches of a lifetime restraining order. This was his fourth prison sentence.

Despite online behaviours often escalating into a more serious case of stalking, police officers regularly dismiss victims’ reports of concerning online behaviour. For example, a stalking advocate from the National Stalking Service stated: ‘My client's ex-partner had been to prison twice for breach of Restraining Order and 4a stalking. He came out of prison and called her 100's of times a day, when she reported it, the police officer told her this isn't a crime so she needs to just ask the phone company to block his number.’[7]

It is imperative that concerning online behaviours are dealt with in a serious and timely manner, and that victims feel they are believed and supported by authorities when they do come forward. Commonly we find that evidence of online behaviours is not gathered by police, because they do not consider it to be a crime or do not deem it to be sufficient evidence to amount to a crime. This can mean that vital evidence proving the crime of stalking is being missed or excluded thus lowering the chances of the perpetrator being convicted and increasing the risk of escalation towards the victim.

Question 2: To what extent is there evidence that men who commit certain crimes (such as non-contact sexual offences) go on to commit serious violent offences against women and girls?

In a study of female homicides resulting from male violence stalking behaviours were present in 94% of cases.[8] The cases of Gracie Spinks and Alice Ruggles’ and many others show how stalking cases can result in murder.

Gracie Spinks, 23, is thought to have been murdered by Michael Sellers in June 2021. Sellers was Spinks’ supervisor at work and stalked her for months. Gracie reported to the police that Sellers was stalking her after an incident where he was waiting for her outside the stables where she kept her horse. No action was taken and shortly after Sellers followed Gracie Spinks to a field where she was looking after her horse and fatally injured her.[9]

The murder of Alice Ruggles is also a tragic reminder of a case where the lack of early identification by police can have fatal consequences. Alice was killed by an ex-partner at the age of 24 following a campaign of stalking. The trigger was the separation and the perpetrator finding out Alice was in another relationship. The Domestic Homicide Review found that ‘the perpetrator’s obsession with Alice and his persistent behaviour escalated in the weeks leading up to the homicide in October 2016’. Alice reported a number of stalking behaviours to the police that month, including loitering near her home, unwanted gifts being left at her doorstep and suspected hacking of social media. The perpetrator even drove over 100 miles from Edinburgh to see her, further evidencing his fixation and obsession, and left a voicemail on her phone where he discusses not wanting to kill her eleven times. The latter should have been a red flag and a warning of the risk of homicide. However, despite Alice reporting the behaviour to the police, they did not identify or record the offence as stalking (but rather as harassment), and did not put adequate protections in place. The Domestic Homicide Review found that ‘this was significant in setting the course of events that followed… impact[ing] on the decision-making, risk assessment and risk management of the situation’. Alice was stabbed to death in her own home on October 12th. The IOPC investigated the officers in question for a case of misconduct on the basis that they failed to identify stalking, failed to comply with the force’s procedure on stalking, failed to take positive action, dealt with Miss Ruggles in a discourteous manner and failed to conduct an appropriate investigation. The IOPC conducted its own investigation, concluding that there was evidence of a case to answer for misconduct for a police constable for failing to appropriately investigate the report of Dhillon’s stalking, as well as a failure to comply with the force’s own stalking and harassment procedures.[10] Had the force listened to Alice when she reported stalking and responded appropriately to the concerning risk markers that the perpetrator was demonstrating, she may be alive today.

These are not isolated incidents. In the analysis of her research on the ‘Homicide Timeline’, Professor Monckton Smith explains that the best way to assess risk in cases of coercive control and stalking (where coercive control was present within the intact relationship) is to look for ‘clusters’ of high-risk markers. She highlights the following clusters as being of particular concern significantly leading to homicide: coercive control, violence and separation.

Coercive and controlling behaviours can have a devastating lifelong impact on the victim resulting in physical, psychological, economic and emotional harm. However, it should be noted that there are varying degrees of coercive and controlling behaviour, as it starts from point 1 on the Homicide Timeline (pre-relationship) all the way through to point 5. Stalking however usually comes in at point 5, meaning we are immediately closer to the risk of homicide. Monckton Smith notes that stalking can happen all the way through a relationship, but if it becomes more visible at point 5 that is a sign of serious escalation. The person is responding to their loss of control and clawing to try to get it back. Moreover, in her book ‘In Control’, Professor Monckton Smith notes that ‘the average length of time between a separation and a homicide is just over a month.’ Failure to recognise stalking as early as possible and act on a risk management plan with urgency can also invariably prove fatal for victims.

Due to the link between stalking and homicide it is vital to identify stalkers early on to prevent escalation: ‘Early intervention may weed out those more likely to desist, and help to identify persistent stalkers earlier.’ (Monckton Smith). The National Stalking Helpline holds cases that have spanned decades, resulting from the failure to identify and respond to the crime in adequate time, which in turns has meant the fixation and obsession has become more embedded. The case of Claire Waxman, Victim’s Commissioner for London, clearly demonstrates this point. Police and other criminal justice agencies failed to respond to her stalking case with the appropriate level of severity, resulting in a case that has now spanned close to two decades. Her stalker breached his restraining order numerous times and continued to stalk Claire despite receiving five convictions. Breaking the cycle of fixation and obsession as early as possible is therefore absolutely key in order to stop reoffending and prevent serious escalation.

Question 3: How effective is (a) the police service and (b) the criminal justice system at responding to these behaviours and offences and how might those responses by improved?

The impact of police not recognising evidence of stalking and closing the case instead of putting in place appropriate protections allows the behaviours to escalate which can cause the fixation and obsession to embed over time, putting victims at risk.

The Suzy Lamplugh Trust has launched a super-complaint against the police, finding systemic issues in the response to stalking across England and Wales. Issues of concern include a lack of understanding among officers as to what behaviours constitute stalking, as well as treating behaviours as single incidents as opposed to recognising the wider pattern of behaviour. It is common for the crime to be investigated as a ‘lower-level’ offence, such as malicious communications or criminal damage, or to be misidentified as harassment, thus setting a course for an incorrect pathway through the criminal justice system. The super-complaint identifies a myriad of issues with the way police officers deal with cases of stalking, from flawed investigations and NFA (No Further Action) decisions, the risk of serious harm and homicide to the victim not being recognised by the police, the police failing to recognise the impact of online (or cyber) stalking and treat the behaviours as evidence and cases being erroneously NFA’d by the police due to lack of evidence.[11]

Additionally, failing to treat repeated breaches as a separate offence of stalking results in the perpetrator not being held to account for the crime they are committing and leaving the victim at risk yet again. This lack of response by police ultimately results in the victim being re-traumatised and the perpetrator not being held to account, increasing mistrust in the police and the criminal justice system as a whole.

The Victim’s Code states that: ‘You have the Right to be referred to services that support victims, which includes the right to contact them directly, and to have your needs assessed so services and support can be tailored to meet your needs. If eligible, you have the right to be offered a referral to specialist support services’. It is critical for police to signpost stalking victims to a specialist stalking service (national or local) when victims report stalking, to ensure that they are receiving critical specialist independent support and have a better understanding of their rights as victims.

Too often, stalking advocates relay cases in which victims have been given unhelpful or in many cases even dangerous advice in cases of both online and offline stalking. In some cases police advised the victim to make contact with the perpetrator in instances that would have put the victim at risk; other times victims were asked to gather evidence themselves, such as by recording the perpetrator, which could easily escalate into physical harm. That’s why we submitted a super complaint last year that suggests there are deep-rooted systemic issues across all police forces that are putting many victims at risk, which is currently under investigation by HMICFRS, the College of Policing and the IOPC. This highlights the urgent need for specialist stalking training for police officers to ensure a tailored risk management plan is implemented in each case according to the victim’s individual circumstances.

There is a statutory requirement/duty to tackle stalking as part of the Serious Violence Duty. The Serious Violence Duty requires all local areas to work together and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence, including identifying the kinds of serious violence that occur in the area, the causes of that violence (so far as it is possible to do so), and to prepare and implement a strategy for preventing, and reducing serious violence in the area. The Home Office 2021 VAWG strategy clearly states how serious a risk stalking poses. Stalking can end in homicide the tragic cases of Alice Ruggles, Shana Grice and Gracie Spinks provide us with the stark reality of what happens when stalking is not taken seriously by the police and other criminal justice partners.  It is also evident that the detrimental psychological impact on the victim is often not being recognised (91% of victims in a study experienced mental health issues after being stalked), nor is the risk of homicide in stalking cases.

To improve police response to escalating stalking behaviours and reduce harm for the victim, SPOs should be applied for at the earliest opportunity that best protects the victim – a maximum of 4 weeks between recognising the need for SPO and its application. Meanwhile an interim SPO should be put in place within 48 hours of a report by a victim or the arrest of a perpetrator suspected of stalking, with the victim’s consent.

They should also implement structures and resources (such as specialist officers) to ensure the police respond to breaches of Stalking Protection Orders (interim or full) as a criminal offence; this should include responding in a timely and appropriate manner and arresting the offender when the breach occurs (as outlined in the Stalking Protection Order statutory guidance for police 2021); this also applies to other orders such as Restraining Orders or Non-Molestation Orders.

Question 4: What interventions are currently in place for perpetrators with different offending histories and how effective are they for different offender pathways?

The risks associated with stalking require very specific management in order to protect victims from the known likelihood of an escalation of violence if the fixation and obsession is not addressed. The use of DAPOs, or anything other than the specific stalking legislation and Stalking Protection Orders, will not therefore identify and name stalking and may endanger the victim by not implementing the correct risk management and perpetrator intervention, to address the specific motivation of stalking. Domestic Abuse perpetrator programmes are not suitable for stalkers; in fact there is a risk that the behaviours will escalate as a consequence.

MASIP is a Multi-Agency Stalking Intervention Programme that meets the Suzy Lamplugh Trust MASIP® Standards. A co-located team of professionals who work together as one unit to identify, manage and intervene to ensure the best support for victims and robust response to perpetrators.  Under MASIP, agencies work together to ensure a robust criminal justice response is paired with the most effective risk management and where needed, direct perpetrator intervention, while remaining survivor-centred to enhance protection to those victimised.

A MASIP deals with stalking victims and perpetrators as a joint responsibility across all agencies – victim services, police, probation, CPS and health.  It develops an integrated response that starts from the moment the victim reports (and in fact before by educating every agency to recognise stalking). A truly integrated response is not about handing cases from one agency to another but understanding all elements of those individuals from all perspectives from the outset.  It is not about a meeting once a week/month where information is shared about ‘problem/complex’ or ‘high risk’ cases because fundamentally in most areas there are no experts who have the understanding to know what complexity and high risk look like for stalking and what an effective response might be.   Without tackling perpetrator behaviours, stalking continues and the cycle begins again leading to increased trauma to the victims and the potential for the escalation to homicide.  The perpetrator continues with their behaviour and ultimately costs are occurred across all services continuing on and on and on.

It is vital that the response to stalking perpetrators is distinct from domestic abuse due to the fixation and obsession that underpins it and the specific risk management required in this regard (see our paper attached on the dangers of mis-identifying stalking as post-separation coercive-control for example). The Suzy Lamplugh Trust worked with three sites (London, Cheshire and Hampshire) on the initial pilot for MASIP from 2017-2020.  We continue to work closely with the pilot sites and manage the programmes in London and Cambridge, all of which we believe have developed an outstanding model of best practice that supports victims of this high risk crime and effectively manages the risk of stalking perpetrators. 

Cheshire Constabulary’s PEEL Assessment 2021/22 specifically identifies the good practice of their innovative harm reduction unit to safeguard victims of stalking and harassment and influence offender behaviour.  Stalking and Harassment cases in the area are down almost 10% against the national trend. An evaluation of the MASIP pilot by researchers at University College London found positive outcomes and promising indicators of change on rates of reoffending and cost savings for agencies (https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10097009/). On average the stalking reoffending rate is usually between 40-55%.  Recent data from the Stalking Threat Assessment Centre (STAC) in London shows the reoffending rate was 22% after direct intervention within 18 months of completing the programme. 17.6% reoffended following a health intervention in Cheshire.  In addition Cheshire now has the highest charge rate for stalking in England and Wales. A UCL study  found a cost saving ratio of the state between 1:2 and 1:82. This means that for every £1 spent by the state a saving of between £2 and £82.40 is made. The degree of variability is based on modelled scenarios of best and worst case (see evaluation link above for more information).

Question 5: To what extent is there evidence that escalating behaviours is a particular problem within the emergency services and other public sector organisations?

There have been numerous reports released recently regarding police conduct and the way in which police forces often ignore reports of harmful behaviours. For example, a recent report by Citizens Advice Cornwall highlighted that women who had contacted Devon and Cornwall Police on matters related to domestic abuse and stalking cases were faced with poor communication, a lack of empathy and a failure to address safety issues from officers.[12]

Baroness Casey’s year-long review of the Met Police also highlights systemic failures in the force and underlining that racism, misogyny and homophobia were rife.[13]

September 2023