Stalking: Interim Report (html)

2. Identifying stalking and taking it seriously

Overview

• The focus of this report is on early intervention and timely and appropriate police responses to stalking behaviour

• Our work has been shaped by what is known from the existing research, and what stakeholders and victim survivors told us in this inquiry

• There is little research into the police response to non-family violence stalking, or victim survivors’ experiences in reporting stalking to police. This reference contributes new knowledge to this important yet understudied topic.

• This chapter identifies the main issues police encounter in identifying and responding to reports of stalking. We aim to address these issues through our reforms

• We heard that stalking is not always identified by police or by victim survivors themselves

• We heard from victim survivors that people, including police, often dismiss or minimise their experience of stalking

• We also heard from victim survivors that police do not always formally record reports of stalking. This was echoed in submissions from organisations who provide free legal assistance

• Our recommendations focus on meeting the needs of victim survivors of stalking.

Defining and understanding stalking

2.1 Stalking is a social problem that is not widely understood. The material covered in this section will be discussed in more detail in the final report. However, we have endeavoured to provide sufficient detail here to contextualise the interim report.

2.2 Stalking involves intrusive behaviour often in the form of unwanted communication.[1] It can involve unwanted contact, property damage, and entering the victim survivor’s home.[2]

2.3 Stalking is a complex crime because some of the behaviours are lawful under ordinary circumstances, such as sending text messages or leaving gifts. However, when such otherwise lawful behaviours are uninvited, intrusive, or persistent, they may constitute the offence of stalking.

2.4 In Victoria a person stalks another person if they engage in a course of conduct with the intention of causing physical or mental harm to the victim, including self-harm, or of arousing apprehension or fear in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person. ‘Course of conduct’ has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the accused’s acts must have shown a ‘continuity of purpose’ in relation to the victim.[3] At the minimum this requires the acts to have been committed on more than one occasion, or to have been protracted.[4] A course of conduct is not simply about the duration or intensity of the conduct. The continuity of purpose is needed as well.[5]

2.5 The Victorian legislation provides an extensive list of the types of acts that could be part of a course of conduct. Some of the behaviours are not offences individually, for example, contacting or following someone is not a crime in itself. This can make it a challenge to recognise, investigate and prove stalking.

2.6 As defined under section 21A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), a person stalks another person if they engage in a course of conduct which includes any of the following:

• following the victim or any other person

• contacting the victim or any other person by post, telephone, fax, text message, e-mail or other electronic communication or by any other means whatsoever;

• publishing on the internet or by e-mail or other electronic communication to any person a statement or other material relating to the victim or any other person; or purporting to relate to, or to originate from, the victim or any other person;

• causing an unauthorised computer function in a computer owned or used by the victim or any other person;

• tracing the victim’s or any other person’s use of the internet or e-mail or other electronic communications;

• entering or loitering outside or near the victim’s or any other person’s place of residence or of business or any other place frequented by the victim or the other person;

• interfering with property in the victim’s or any other person’s possession;

• making threats to the victim;

• using abusive or offensive words to or in the presence of the victim;

• performing abusive or offensive acts in the presence of the victim;

• directing abusive or offensive acts towards the victim;

• giving offensive material to the victim or any other person or leaving it where it will be found by, given to or brought to the attention of, the victim or the other person;

• keeping the victim or any other person under surveillance

• acting in any other way that could reasonably be expected to cause physical or mental harm to the victim, including self-harm; or to arouse apprehension or fear in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person—with the intention of causing physical or mental harm to the victim, including self-harm, or of arousing apprehension or fear in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person.

2.7 Stalking can have a debilitating impact on those who experience it. It can cause significant harm to victim survivors’ mental and physical health. If not addressed, stalking can escalate to other types of serious offending, including explicit threats, or serious physical and/or sexual violence.[6]

2.8 While there have been increasing efforts to understand and address the issue of stalking in a family violence or post-separation intimate partner context, less attention has been given to non-family violence stalking.

2.9 Stalking is a serious and relatively common crime. It is estimated that from the age of 14, 17 per cent of women and 6.5 per cent of men have been a victim of stalking at least once in their lifetime.[7] Men are more likely to be stalked by another male than by a female.[8] Although stalking can be experienced by anyone regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality, disability, or socioeconomic position, barriers to reporting and recovery are greater for some groups.[9] Stalking can also be experienced differently by different people. For example:

• The prevalence of stalking victimisation is higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women than non-Indigenous women and has a unique and far-reaching impact upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, their families, and their communities.[10]

• Women with disability or long-term health conditions are more likely than women without disability or long-term health conditions to experience stalking.[11]

• It is not uncommon for migrant women to experience stalking from more than one person.[12]

• Transgender, bisexual, and queer people have the highest lifetime prevalence rates of stalking victimisation of LGBTIQIA+ communities yet the lowest rates of reporting their victimisation to police.[13]

2.10 The impacts of stalking on victim survivors are not well known. Stalking is often normalised in popular culture, with romanticised portrayals in film and television.[14] However, the impacts can be devastating and enduring. They can include psychological symptoms and mood disturbances such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, intrusive recollections and flashbacks, and difficulties sleeping.[15] Stalking is also associated with physical symptoms such as gastrointestinal problems, nausea, fatigue, chronic pain, ‘and exacerbations of pre-existing medical conditions like asthma, hypertension and psoriasis’.[16] In tragic, although rare, situations stalking can result in suicide and homicide.[17]

2.11 Many people think that stalking can only be reported once it has reached a point of escalation; that only then will the report to be believed and acted on. This means that many of those who have committed stalking are not held accountable. It also suggests that the behaviours that constitute stalking are not well understood.

The challenges in identifying stalking

I think the line between what is stalking and what is just being ‘overly friendly’ is blurred, so that I didn’t want to speak to the police, because I didn’t know if they’d say ‘oh, that’s not stalking, don’t be ridiculous’.[..] I was told point blank that there was not enough evidence despite me having witnesses, including a lecturer and having social media messages. I tried more than once to report it but was shut down every time, despite living in fear, that my experiences weren’t ‘enough’ to proceed with.[18]

2.12 This was the experience of a young LGBTIQA+ women living in regional Victoria who reported being stalked at her university by another student.

2.13 As illustrated above, because the offence of stalking is not widely understood, it can be difficult to identify.

2.14 Victoria Police is responsible for preventing crime and identifying and investigating offences, including stalking. A comprehensive policing response to stalking must place the victim survivor at the centre, with a focus on:

• de-escalating the stalking situation

• preventing future harm

• holding accountable people who commit stalking

• reducing reoffending and serious outcomes

• making appropriate referrals to address the service needs of victim survivors, as well as those who have committed stalking.

2.15 We heard from the Victims of Crime Commissioner and other stakeholders that ‘the primary challenge for frontline police is identifying the course of conduct/behaviours that constitute stalking’.[19]

2.16 According to submissions, ‘foremost among these systemic problems is the notion that it has traditionally proved difficult, almost universally, for the relevant authorities to recognise what specifically constitutes the crime of stalking—let alone how they might respond to it’.[20]

2.17 We were also told that victim survivors themselves ‘frequently do not identify their experience as stalking’.[21]

2.18 Organisations which provide free legal assistance gave us examples highlighting that ‘clients may not report earlier instances of stalking behaviour as the conduct may be subtle and may only be understood as forming part of a pattern of stalking behaviour when viewed in retrospect. This may later create difficulties in building the evidence needed to prove there has been a course of conduct’.[22]

Barriers to reporting stalking and receiving a police response

2.19 Stalking can be difficult to disclose because of unsupportive community attitudes, which minimise and hide the real harms of stalking.

2.20 Research suggests the police response to stalking requires improvement.[23] Studies have linked negative experiences and inadequate police responses to police misconceptions about what behaviours constitute stalking.[24]

2.21 As Forensicare explained, the consequence is ‘that stalking is not recognised at court or by correctional services, and so does not receive specialist assessment or treatment through the correctional system’.[25]

2.22 Due to the ‘problems identifying stalking at every point of the criminal justice and mental health response’, Forensicare told us that it is ‘essential that [those responding] to stalking take a behavioural approach to identifying the problem rather than relying on the person being stalked identifying it “correctly” or relying on the presence of a stalking charge’.[26]

2.23 The importance of identifying stalking was further emphasised by Forensicare:

failure to accurately identify stalking at the earliest opportunity means that victim safety will not be sufficiently prioritised … and the person who is stalking will not be offered relevant services to help them stop the behaviour.[27]

2.24 In order to address the needs of victim survivors and manage the harms experienced, we were told that ‘the initial identification of stalking is very important’.[28]

2.25 The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria told us that accurate early identification is critical for making appropriate orders at court, which may de-escalate the situation:

it is about identifying if it is stalking and if it is, what kind of stalking it is. The police need to raise these flags with the court by highlighting that in their application. That information could assist the magistrate in making a tailored order.[29]

2.26 This may include attaching specific conditions on PSIOs, such as, for example, an order setting out exclusion zones to prevent the person who has engaged in stalking behaviour from attending certain areas and premises.

2.27 It is also crucial for police to recognise the seriousness of stalking behaviour.[30]

Stalking is not always treated by police as a serious crime

2.28 The evidence base on policing stalking in Victoria (and Australia) is limited. However, evidence indicates that police in other countries ‘often underestimate the severity of stalking and fail to respond adequately to protect victims’.[31]

2.29 Stalking is often only reported to police by the person being stalked when the stalking has escalated or persisted for some time.[32] One survey found that 77 per cent of victim survivors do not report stalking until the hundredth incident.[33]

2.30 This was acknowledged by Victoria Police in its submission:

victims often seek help and choose to report stalking to police at a point in time when behaviours towards them have already escalated, and they are in fear of their physical or mental safety.[34]

2.31 Similarly, we heard from stakeholders that because what constitutes stalking is not well understood, people, including police, ‘fail to take it seriously until it involves explicit threats or violence’.[35]

2.32 One international study found that victim survivors criticise the way police treat disclosures of stalking,[36] claiming that:

• early intervention is rare

• inadequate support is provided by police at the point of disclosure

• victim survivors face a significant challenge in convincing police of the seriousness of the behaviour experienced.[37]

2.33 This suggests a lack understanding of the harms of stalking among police.

2.34 Victim survivors also perceive that police will not take action upon reporting, which contributes to low reporting rates. [38]

2.35 The traditional incident-based model of policing has meant that stalking is often not considered serious enough to warrant police attention.[39]

2.36 This was a consistent theme in consultations with, and survey responses from, victim survivors. They told us that often their reports of stalking were dismissed by police, or not taken seriously.

2.37 Victim survivors told us that when they report stalking to police, they are often told that no crime has occurred, that what they are reporting is not serious enough for police to take action, or to apply for a PSIO themselves, which can compromise their safety. This can be clearly seen in the following statements from victim survivors.

Each time I went to my local station, all they would do was say, ‘he hasn’t broken any laws so we can’t do anything’.[40]

The general reaction from police was that I was an older anxious woman who lived alone and not worth their time. That I was wasting their time.[41]

2.38 The issue of not being believed by police was particularly acute for victim survivors living in regional, rural, or remote areas:

In a small regional town where the police are related to many older residents of the town, newcomers like me are severely hampered and not believed.[42]

2.39 This issue was also highlighted in submissions by organisations which provide free legal assistance:

[clients often perceive] that police have not taken their complaints seriously. Clients frequently report police declining to take a statement, or declining to charge the person, usually on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence.[43]

2.40 The Law Institute of Victoria expressed concern that ‘stalking complaints are not afforded serious consideration by law enforcement agencies, particularly as a course of conduct can involve behaviour which would otherwise be lawful’.[44]

2.41 Victim survivors spoke of instances where police had minimised the stalking even where it involved a physical attack.

The perpetrator had me bailed up in the garage—the 000-operator listened, and then informed me that he wouldn’t send the police as I was wasting police time. And they had better things to do. This is actually what he said as I was sobbing for help and a 6-foot-4 man was rattling the door. And he had already attacked me.[45]

I called 000 and went to the local police station as that was what I was advised to do. When I presented at the counter, I was terrified as it had just happened—and right outside the police station. When I asked her what I needed to do, the policewoman yelled at me and said, ‘What am I supposed to do?’.[46]

2.42 Submissions from members of the public informed us that ‘police are often busy and “flippant” in their attitude to a “minor” stalking matter’.[47]

2.43 We were also told in submissions that police need to be ‘less victim blaming’.[48] One submission provided the example of a client who ‘was berated by police for having CCTV footage of the front footpath [which] clearly showed stalking behaviour from the offender, however that wasn’t the police officer’s focus’.[49]

2.44 Organisations which provide free legal assistance explained that this lack of police response is compounded for certain groups:

we have encountered instances whereby clients who experience intersectional disadvantage based on, for example, their gender, race, disability, or low proficiency in English, have felt they have not been taken seriously by police. There does seem to be inconsistencies in the way that police interact with particular cohorts of complainants.[50]

2.45 Similarly, Victorian Pride Lobby told us of the particular ‘minimisation of LGBTIQA+ people’s experiences of stalking and harassment’.[51] Given people within these communities have the lowest rates of reporting stalking to police, the safety and justice response potentially offered through reporting stalking to police, are not equally accessible for all Victorians.

2.46 We were told that victim survivors of stalking ‘who experience intersectional disadvantage based on, for example, their gender, race, disability, or low proficiency in English’, may decide ‘not to pursue their matter further given their past interactions with police … [and losing] their sense of confidence in law enforcement and our legal system’.[52]

2.47 If police do not act on complaints of stalking, or otherwise underestimate their seriousness, it can place people at risk of significant harm, especially where the victim of stalking is reporting a situation that is persistent and/or escalating.

2.48 Rather than dismissing and minimising allegations of stalking, Victoria Police must ensure that all disclosures of stalking are taken seriously. There is a need for further education on what constitutes stalking and the nature and extent of the harms, in order to overcome dominant misconceptions.

Key misconceptions

2.49 A key misconception is that ‘real’ stalking is perpetrated by a person who is a stranger to the victim.

2.50 One study suggests that there are parallels between perceptions of stalking and perceptions of rape. Victim survivors of rape are more likely to be considered credible where the perpetrator is a stranger.[53]

2.51 Similar myths and misunderstandings persist in the context of stalking, despite stranger-related stalking being the least common form. Most stalking is perpetrated by someone known to the victim, is more likely to persist over a longer duration, and less likely to result in conviction.[54]

The differences between family violence stalking and non-family violence stalking

2.52 To address the issue of misconceptions, in some international jurisdictions stalking cases are handled by specialist domestic violence units within police departments.[55]

2.53 However, there are good reasons not to draw resources from specialist domestic violence services. Non-family violence stalking is a distinct crime requiring a distinct response.[56]

2.54 We were told that ‘while there is some overlap between family violence and stalking, the dynamics typically differ’ and the specialist family violence response ‘will not effectively address the stalking situation’.[57]

2.55 Furthermore, ‘stalking will not have the same volume of cases as family violence to warrant the same scope of specialist response’,[58] and using ‘such resources will not be appropriate for many of those stalked by strangers or acquaintances’.[59]

2.56 It is therefore important to examine how ‘[police]—particularly those who are not located within specialist units—perceive stalking and the extent to which prior relationship mediates their assessment of the situation’.[60]

2.57 Research on police responses to stalking indicates that experience in handling stalking cases ‘mitigated some prevalent stereotypical beliefs concerning stalking (e.g., victim responsibility)’.[61]

2.58 This gives weight to the suggestion ‘that further training is necessary to combat common misconceptions surrounding stalking’.[62] It also suggests that traditional incident-based responses from police may not be suitable for stalking, which involves a course of conduct.[63] Traditional incident-based responses typically involve individual offences, whereas the course of conduct underlying stalking often includes one or more of the (individually) lawful behaviours listed in s.21A(2).

Training

2.59 It was submitted that victim survivors of stalking:

may describe the behaviour they are experiencing as stalking, but often people report particular behaviours that are causing them fear or distress or a particular incident that has caused them to seek help. It is therefore important that the person receiving the report knows to ask about a potential course of conduct to ascertain if stalking is present.[64]

2.60 We heard from victim survivors about instances where what they reported was not responded to as stalking, or where police were dismissive of the report.

I told my husband that the new neighbour was stalking me. He was parking up the road for up to 3 hours at a time. My phone was being rung at all hours of the night. I had to take message bank off my phone because there were vile messages left. There were death threats, enquiry by funeral parlour and there was life insurance company that contacted me, when I had not requested that. [..] Police said there was nothing they could do unless something happened.[65]

2.61 This was the experience of an Aboriginal woman living in regional Victoria who tried to report stalking to her local police station.

2.62 The Federation of Community Legal Centres stated that ‘police responses to stalking could be strengthened by increasing police training on stalking’.[66]

2.63 The need for further training is highlighted in the following survey response from a victim survivor: ‘You cannot talk to untrained officers about this subject as they DON’T understand the seriousness’.[67]

2.64 This point was similarly emphasised by experts on stalking and the risk of serious harm and/or outcomes.

2.65 As one stakeholder explained:

Extensive training on identification of stalking should be mandatory for all professionals working with victims of stalking, including police and the courts. Training should also identify trigger points of escalating behaviour that do not fit conventional stalking behaviours … We need to identify that there are barriers to reporting as well, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Police must be required to investigate all complaints of stalking and avoid making judgments based on the victim’s evidence or lack thereof.[68]

2.66 While police receive intensive training in family violence, stakeholders submitted that:

even then, they are not always consistent. The lessons from family violence training are the need for simple tools that make it easy for police to identify when they are in a scenario where a specific approach is required.[69]

2.67 Some stakeholders supported the idea of stalking specialisation within Victoria Police, but others queried the need for specialist police: ‘A better approach might be to train the existing service. Stalking is not an isolated crime and may also be part of other crimes perpetrated against the same woman’.[70]

2.68 It is evident based on the examples provided from victim survivors above that further training and cultural change is needed within Victoria Police. Police should understand the nature and dynamics of stalking, and the associated factors which may give rise to risk of harm and/or serious outcomes.[71]

2.69 Through cultural change within Victoria Police, greater recognition of stalking may filter into the community. Those who experience stalking may be able to make a report sooner than is currently the case, and they may access intervention and safety earlier.

2.70 However, stalking cases are difficult for police to effectively identify and respond to. We were told in submissions that ‘there are barriers to recognising stalking at every point in the intervention process’.[72]

2.71 Submissions stated that ‘it may not be possible for everyone to receive specialist training’, and in recognition of the limitations of training alone, it was submitted that guidance should be provided. We were told that police should be ‘given enough information to know how to identify stalking and what the referral process [after stalking is identified] should be’.[73]

2.72 As the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science submitted:

it is important to differentiate between frameworks for identifying stalking and gathering necessary information about it, and risk assessment. It can be useful for agencies to have a standardised framework to help them identify when stalking might be present, and then gather information about the stalking that is necessary to provide useful advice to the person being stalked, and to inform later risk assessment.[74]

2.73 The first step is therefore improving the identification of stalking conduct. We discuss the need for specific guidance in the next chapter.

Recommendations

1 Victoria Police should engage with appropriate experts to provide training to enhance the understanding of frontline police to identify stalking behaviours as set out in the Act.

2 Victoria Police should develop guidance for frontline police on interviewing and communicating with victim survivors of stalking, with the aim of improving the gathering, recording, and management of evidence and the investigation of cases.


  1. Troy E McEwan, Paul E Mullen and Rachel MacKenzie, ‘A Study of the Predictors of Persistence in Stalking Situations’ (2009) 33(2) Law & Human Behavior 149.

  2. Ibid.

  3. Berlyn v Brouskos [2002] VSC 377, (2002) 134 A Crim R 111.

  4. Ibid.

  5. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 21A(2); Nadarajamoorthy v Moreton [2003] VSC 283.

  6. Troy E McEwan, Paul E Mullen and Rachel MacKenzie, ‘A Study of the Predictors of Persistence in Stalking Situations’ (2009) 33(2) Law & Human Behavior 149.

  7. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Personal Safety, Australia, 2016 (Catalogue No 4906.0, 8 November 2017) <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/latest-release>.

  8. Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan and Lorraine L Sheridan, Psycho-Criminological Approaches to Stalking Behavior: An International Perspective (John Wiley & Sons, 2020).

  9. Nicola Henry et al, ‘Technology-Facilitated Domestic Violence against Immigrant and Refugee Women: A Qualitative Study’ (2021) Journal of Interpersonal Violence DOI 08862605211001465: 1–27.

  10. K Cripps et al, Attitudes towards Violence against Women and Gender Equality among Aboriginal People and Torres Strait Islanders—Findings from the 2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS) (ANROWS Insights No 3/2019, 2019) <https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1797750465>.

  11. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Personal Safety, Australia, 2016 (Catalogue No 4906.0, 8 November 2017) <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/latest-release>.

  12. Nicola Henry et al, ‘Technology-Facilitated Domestic Violence against Immigrant and Refugee Women: A Qualitative Study’ (2021) Journal of Interpersonal Violence DOI 08862605211001465: 1–27.

  13. Lisa Langenderfer-Magruder et al, ‘Stalking Victimization in LGBTQ Adults: A Brief Report’ (2020) 35(5–6) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1442.

  14. Michelle Sibenik, ‘A Critical Analysis of the Applications of Anti-Stalking Legislation in Victoria, Australia’ (PhD Thesis, Monash University, 2018).

  15. Michele Pathé and Paul E Mullen, ‘The Impact of Stalkers on Their Victims’ (1997) 170(1) The British Journal of Psychiatry 12.

  16. Michele Pathé, Paul E Mullen and Rosemary Purcell, ‘Management of Victims of Stalking’ (2001) 7(6) Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 399, 401.

  17. Tim Boehnlein et al, ‘Responding to Stalking Victims: Perceptions, Barriers, and Directions for Future Research’ (2020) 35(7) Journal of Family Violence 755.

  18. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, December 2021); Kellie R Lynch and TK Logan, ‘Police Officers’ Attitudes and Challenges with Charging Stalking’ (2015) 30(6) Violence and Victims 1037; Fawn T Ngo, ‘Stalking Victimization: Examining the Impact of Police Action and Inaction on Victim-Reported Outcome’ (2020) 35(2) Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 146.

  19. Submission 100 (Forensicare) ; Submission 33 (Victims of Crime Commissioner).

  20. Submission 56 (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party).

  21. Cleo Brandt and Bianca Voerman, ‘The Dutch Model: A New Approach to Policing Stalking’ in Psycho-Criminological Approaches to Stalking Behaviour—An International Perspective (Wiley, 2020) 22; Submissions (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science), (Forensicare).

  22. Submission 95 (Springvale Monash Legal Service).

  23. Jenny Korkodeilou, ‘Stalking Victims, Victims of Sexual Violence and Criminal Justice System Responses: Is There a Difference or Just “Business as Usual”?’ (2016) 56(2) British Journal of Criminology 256.

  24. Ibid; Bronwyn McKeon, Troy E McEwan and Stefan Luebbers, ‘“It’s Not Really Stalking If You Know the Person”: Measuring Community Attitudes That Normalize, Justify and Minimise Stalking’ (2015) 22(2) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 291; Lorraine Sheridan and Graham M Davies, ‘What Is Stalking? The Match between Legislation and Public Perception’ (2001) 6(1) Legal and Criminological Psychology 3.

  25. Submission 100 (Forensicare).

  26. Ibid.

  27. Ibid.

  28. Consultation 7 (Small Group Meeting on stalking and risk of serious harm and or outcomes).

  29. Consultation 6 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria).

  30. Tim Boehnlein et al, ‘Responding to Stalking Victims: Perceptions, Barriers, and Directions for Future Research’ (2020) 35(7) Journal of Family Violence 755; Kritika Jerath, Lisa Tompson and Jyoti Belur, ‘Risk Management in Stalking Victims: A Multi-Agency Approach to Victim Advocacy’ (2020) Journal of Interpersonal Violence DOI 10.1177/0886260520980402: 1–27; TK Logan and Robert Walker, ‘Stalking: A Multidimensional Framework for Assessment and Safety Planning’ (2017) 18(2) Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 200; AJ Nichols, ‘Advocacy Responses to Intimate Partner Stalking: Micro, Mezzo, and Macro Level Practices’ (2020) 35(7) Journal of Family Violence 741; Holly Taylor-Dunn, Erica Bowen and Elizabeth A Gilchrist, ‘Reporting Harassment and Stalking to the Police: A Qualitative Study of Victims’ Experiences’ (2018) 36(11–12) Journal of Interpersonal Violence NP5965.

  31. Kellie R Lynch and TK Logan, ‘Police Officers’ Attitudes and Challenges with Charging Stalking’ (2015) 30(6) Violence and Victims 1037, 1037.

  32. Patrick Brady, Bradford Reyns and Rebecca Dreke, ‘A Sign of the Crimes: Examining Officers’ Identification of, and Arrest for, Stalking in Domestic Violence Complaints’ (2020) 23(4) Police Quarterly 500.

  33. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Living in Fear: The Police and CPS Response to Harassment and Stalking (Report, July 2017) 5.

  34. Submission 115 (Victoria Police).

  35. Lorraine Sheridan and Adrian J Scott, ‘Perceptions of Harm: Verbal versus Physical Abuse in Stalking Scenarios’ (2010) 37(4) Criminal Justice and Behavior 400; Submission 100 (Forensicare).

  36. Jenny Korkodeilou, ‘Stalking Victims, Victims of Sexual Violence and Criminal Justice System Responses: Is There a Difference or Just “Business as Usual”?’ (2016) 56(2) British Journal of Criminology 256.

  37. Ibid.

  38. Ibid 4.

  39. Thomas Holt et al, ‘Examining Perceptions of Online Harassment among Constables in England and Wales’ (2019) 2(1) International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime 24.

  40. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, December 2021).

  41. Ibid.

  42. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, December 2021).

  43. Submission 95 (Springvale Monash Legal Service).

  44. Submission 98 (Law Institute of Victoria).

  45. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, December 2021).

  46. Ibid.

  47. Submission 6 (name withheld).

  48. Ibid.

  49. Ibid.

  50. Submission 95 (Springvale Monash Legal Service).

  51. Submission 39 (Victorian Pride Lobby).

  52. Submission 95 (Springvale Monash Legal Service).

  53. Michelle Weller, Lorraine Hope and Lorraine Sheridan, ‘Police and Public Perceptions of Stalking: The Role of Prior Victim–Offender Relationship’ (2013) 28(2) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 320, 323.

  54. Bronwyn McKeon, Troy E McEwan and Stefan Luebbers, ‘“It’s Not Really Stalking If You Know the Person”: Measuring Community Attitudes That Normalize, Justify and Minimise Stalking’ (2015) 22(2) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 291.

  55. Michelle Weller, Lorraine Hope and Lorraine Sheridan, ‘Police and Public Perceptions of Stalking: The Role of Prior Victim–Offender Relationship’ (2013) 28(2) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 320.

  56. Ibid.

  57. Submission 32 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science).

  58. Consultation 1 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science).

  59. Ibid.

  60. Michelle Weller, Lorraine Hope and Lorraine Sheridan, ‘Police and Public Perceptions of Stalking: The Role of Prior Victim–Offender Relationship’ (2013) 28(2) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 320, 325.

  61. Ibid 320.

  62. Ibid.

  63. Patrick Q Brady and Matt R Nobles, ‘The Dark Figure of Stalking—Examining Law Enforcement Response’ (2017) 32(20) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3149.

  64. Submission 32 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science).

  65. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, December 2021).

  66. Submission 97 (Federation of Community Legal Centres).

  67. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Stalking: Summary of Responses to Online Feedback Form from People with Experience of Stalking (Report, December 2021).

  68. Consultation 7 (Small Group Meeting on stalking and risk of serious harm and or outcomes).

  69. Consultation 12 (Domestic Violence Victoria and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria).

  70. Consultation 22 (Small group meeting on stalking and people with disabilities).

  71. Bethany L Backes et al, ‘The Criminal Justice System Response to Intimate Partner Stalking: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Research’ (2020) 35(7) Journal of Family Violence 665; Patrick Q Brady and Matt R Nobles, ‘The Dark Figure of Stalking—Examining Law Enforcement Response’ (2017) 32(20) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3149; Nelli Puronvarsi, Viivi Ruotanen and Juha Holma, ‘Female Survivors’ Experiences of Authorities’ Actions in Cases of Partner Stalking’ (2020) 4(2) Journal of Gender-Based Violence 173.

  72. Submission 100 (Forensicare).

  73. Consultation 12 (Domestic Violence Victoria and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria).

  74. Submission 32 (Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science).