Stalking and Harassment
We now move to the debate on motion S1M-1515, in the name of Jim Wallace, on stalking and harassment, together with two amendments to that motion.
I think that every member of this Parliament would agree that stalking and harassment is insidious and instils much fear and suffering in its victims.
Strengthening the protection provided by the law for victims of stalking and harassment is high on our list of priorities. I will explain how we will make progress on the responses to our consultation on this complex issue. The 35 responses that we received to our consultation paper included views from victims, agencies in the criminal justice system and victim support organisations. I thank those who responded, especially victims who set out their personal and often painful histories.
Key points that arose from the consultation included the uncertainty surrounding the range of remedies available and how those work in practice; what the police can do in cases of breach of non-harassment orders; the cost of access to civil remedies; how much information on previous convictions can be made available to a court; and the level of incidence of stalking and the lack of research into that behaviour.
Let me make it clear at the outset that the status quo is not an option. Our action plan details practical and procedural changes that will enhance the protection offered under present laws.
Guidance and training are crucial. I will ask the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the director of judicial studies to respond to concerns raised in the consultation, especially the perception of many victims that the problems experienced by victims are not being fully recognised at early reporting stages. I want them to examine critically the way in which training and guidance for the police and judiciary can be made more effective. Agencies should address the way in which they communicate with each other; I will ask ACPOS to assist in organising a multi-agency seminar.
I know that good work is being done by various agencies. For example, comprehensive internal guidance was issued by the Crown Office to procurators fiscal in July last year, and stalking and harassment is considered in the context of a programme of awareness training on domestic abuse, delivered with the assistance of Scottish Women's Aid. Best practice must be disseminated throughout the justice system.
I will also ask ACPOS to report to me on possible measures to increase public awareness of the steps that should be taken from when a person first fears that they are being stalked, and on practical measures that might help them.
Critical assessment of current procedure is only part of the way forward. Following those reports, we will consider our role in publicising the remedies available and the role of various agencies with which potential victims might have contact. For example, a booklet prepared by the Metropolitan police and the Home Office covers both guidance for the police and advice for victims—that seems to me to be an idea that we could tailor usefully to Scottish circumstances.
At present, neither civil interdicts nor non-harassment orders carry a statutory power of arrest if they are breached. The police have common law powers of arrest, but there is a perception that those are seldom used in such circumstances. To remove any uncertainty, we will look for an early opportunity to create statutory powers of arrest when a non-harassment order is breached.
That work will tie in with the proposals in our family law white paper, "Parents and Children", to reform the protections against abuse that are available under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. Those would extend to spouses—whether married or separated—divorcees, cohabitants and ex-cohabitants. The scope of such orders will be widened to cover situations and places beyond the family home. We will also change the act so that a power of arrest can be attached to interdicts for three years.
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee carried out detailed work to develop its proposals for a bill on protection from abuse. Our objectives are the same—to provide improved protection. With the committee, I want to explore further whether its bill might provide a suitable vehicle for the proposal that I have made today on non-harassment orders and the institution of a statutory power of arrest if they are breached.
Access to justice was also raised during the consultation and in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's report. Although I can understand the desire to make legal aid more readily available, it would be inappropriate to create special eligibility rules. Ministers have to ensure equal treatment for applications for legal aid: it would be unfair to others to single out one group for special treatment.
Will the minister consider what I regard as the unfairness of the cases of women who have been subjected to domestic abuse and who might pursue these orders in court? The minister has talked about legal aid, but some of those women might not be able to pay to take cases to court. It seems unfair that, although a criminal offence has been committed, such a case has to be pursued through the civil courts, and paid for. Could the minister consider another type of provision—perhaps along the lines of the system of legal aid in criminal cases—to ensure that we are not debarring women on financial grounds from pursuing orders?
I will make two points in response to those questions. First, Pauline McNeill spoke about women having to pursue a remedy for a criminal activity through the civil process. We want to ensure that criminal activity can be pursued through the criminal justice system. Secondly—and this may anticipate some of the points that I am about to make—although we are not proposing to change the rules for legal aid, we can use powers that are already available to ministers under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986.
As Pauline McNeill suggests, people have criticised the difficulty that is sometimes faced by applicants in obtaining legal aid from the outset for matrimonial exclusion orders and interdicts. We might be able to address those difficulties by setting up a scheme under which the services of a solicitor would not be required at the initial stage of an application to the court. Under such a scheme, specialised training could be available to lay advisers in women's refuges to assist applicants in getting interim interdicts as party litigants. Before fully committing myself to such a model of working, I wish to establish a pilot scheme. We are in discussion with the Scottish Legal Aid Board on how we might do that. It is early days and we can expect a number of practical hurdles to be got over, but I hope to make an announcement shortly. The working group that has already been set up to develop ideas for a community legal service will no doubt wish to consider that idea as part of its wider review.
Consultation has also indicated strong feeling that a way should be found to allow previous convictions to be taken into account by the courts—especially at the time of sentencing—subject to compliance with the European convention on human rights. That relates both to information that is available to the judge at the time of sentencing and to the question of how previous convictions can be used to establish a "course of conduct" for the purposes of a non-harassment order. Clearly, both those issues are difficult. The former is being considered by the Criminal Courts Rules Council, and we have been represented on a working group that is examining how improved information can be made available. The latter is a bit more difficult. I can readily understand the arguments of those who feel that the definition of a "course of conduct" should be broadened to allow previous convictions involving the same victim to be taken into account. There are difficulties, but I hope that we can satisfactorily address that anomaly. I intend to pursue that.
It has been suggested that we should have a statutory offence of stalking and harassment. We have not ruled out introducing a new statutory offence. The issue was canvassed in the consultation document, and it is fair to say that opinion was divided. About one third of respondents wanted a new offence immediately, and a further third thought that a new offence was not needed but that if one were to be introduced, it should be on the back of comprehensive and specifically Scottish research.
There is no doubt as to our objective—to offer effective protection. That is more important than theoretical arguments over the common law versus statutory provision. I agree with the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's comment that it
"does not support the easy presumption that the only way to take a problem seriously is by means of a legislative solution. Often it is more important to make existing law work effectively".
I also agree with organisations such as Victim Support Scotland which have identified a lack of independent research into the full extent of stalking and harassment in Scotland. We need a real and proper understanding of the problems caused by stalking and harassment; the various forms that such behaviour can take; and how the justice system might be improved in its handling of cases.
We will commission research to examine critically the existing criminal and civil law remedies available to deal with stalking and harassment; to assess how those are working in practice; and to examine the nature and prevalence of the types of behaviour that might constitute stalking and harassment in Scotland. The research will also examine the perceptions and experiences of victims and those of professionals involved in the civil and criminal justice systems. That will be a major piece of work. Once we have the findings from the research, we will all be better placed to take an informed decision on the need for new law.
We are determined to find real answers to these problems. I believe that the package of measures I have just outlined underscores our commitment to work with all involved in the justice system to ensure that victims are put first, second, and third. The victim must be our priority.
In summary, we will look for an early opportunity to add statutory powers of arrest to non-harassment orders; work with the police and judiciary to find ways of improving guidance and training and clarifying public understanding; look further at the question of how information on previous convictions can be used; institute pilot training for lay advisers in women's refuges to assist victims in getting interim interdicts; and conduct extensive research into all issues surrounding stalking behaviour in Scotland.
I will keep Parliament advised of our progress on all fronts. There is a determination to get to grips with the problem.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the work undertaken by the Scottish Executive to review the law on stalking and harassment; notes the completion of the consultation exercise carried out in 2000 and endorses the Scottish Executive's proposals for strengthening the law, procedures and practice in this area.
When reading such a motion, I find it a little difficult to know whether I can endorse something of which I have absolutely no knowledge. I wonder whether the matter should have been tackled by way of a ministerial statement, with a subsequent debate a week later. From the wording of the amendments, both Opposition parties have had some difficulty with the motion, which is perhaps vague to the point of pointlessness.
There can be no doubt that the justice system has dismally failed victims of these crimes. As this is a very important area of our current law, it would have been helpful if we had had some advance indication of exactly what was being proposed.
Thus far, our justice system has largely been unable to rise to the challenge; however, there is absolutely no reason why that should have been the case. The truth is that existing common law, particularly through the use of breach of the peace, could—if the will were there—deal effectively with stalking and harassment cases. I agree with the minister that the danger of trying to introduce an apparently new statutory offence lies in the difficulty of definition and the possibility that, right from the start, the definition would not be sufficient. Who, 10 years ago, would have thought of making specific provision to tackle cyberstalking? If we had enacted a specific crime at that time, we would already be having difficulties with it.
Sentencing limits for breach of the peace are limited only by the court in which the case is heard. It is theoretically possible—although very unlikely to happen—that a life sentence could be handed down for a breach of the peace if the case was taken to the High Court. Of course, that does not happen.
That has been the problem in Scotland—there has been an inability to respond to the challenge using the mechanisms that we already have. Such mechanisms have rarely been used or have not been used effectively. Within the system there has been an apparent inability to charge properly and hand out appropriate sentences, which is unfortunate as the beauty of our common law—especially the charge of breach of the peace—is its very flexibility.
Although the failure of the system to deal properly with these crimes has led me on a number of occasions to express the rather reluctant view that we may eventually have to create a new statutory offence, I remain convinced that we can get things right within the available framework. However, for that to happen, there must be a change in practice, which I suspect will require a major change in culture throughout the system. Without a change in that culture, any new statutory offence could be equally ineffective.
This is not a new debate. In 1996, we had exactly the same debate in committee at Westminster, on the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. I raised an issue then that concerned me, which was touched on marginally by the minister, although he did not go into the issue. When someone is being sentenced following a conviction, the sheriff or magistrate has before him or her a schedule of previous convictions. Breaches of the peace are logged in the schedule as nothing more than that. The only guide to the seriousness of the offence is the sentence, which is likely to be minor—perhaps a fine. It is the previous convictions that the sheriff or magistrate will use as a guide when he or she decides what the sentence will be for the case before them.
It is possible for fiscals or the advocate depute to ascertain in advance details of previous convictions, so that at least it can be known what comprised a specific offence, but that does not always happen. People often have long schedules of previous convictions, many of which will be for breach of the peace, but there is little indication therein that a pattern of behaviour might be developing. However, in cases of harassment, it is important to spot such a development.
It did not seem such a radical step to start indicating on those schedules whether a breach of the peace was of such a nature. The former Scottish Office minister who was responsible for those matters, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, responded positively to the suggestion that breach of the peace should be so indicated on schedules of previous convictions. He subsequently confirmed that the Lord Advocate was actively
"considering the possibility with a view to implementing it."
In his closing remarks in that debate, speaking of adding "harassment" in brackets after "breach of the peace", Lord James added that
"there are precedents for that: ‘theft' can have ‘shoplifting' added in brackets after it, so that, if someone is continually involved in shoplifting, that will be picked up. It should be possible to note that harassment has been involved in breach of the peace offences so that appropriate disposals will be made in the event of a long history of offending."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 18 December 1996; Vol 287, c 974, 978.]
Some weeks later, Lord James wrote to me saying that the changes that had been suggested would be implemented, and that breaches of the peace that fell into the category of harassment were to be recorded as such. That would have helped enormously. One of the difficulties with harassment is that a number of apparently trivial individual incidents can together cause the problem. A qualification of a breach of the peace would allow a judge to assess the crime more effectively when it came to sentencing. Tougher sentencing would also begin to reassure victims, as the public perception of breach of the peace is that it is a minor crime. Indeed, victim organisations have talked of the feeling of being let down when they discover that the offender has been charged only with breach of the peace.
Such a change would have helped enormously. However, despite the fact that the commitment was made on record, as far as I am aware, that change was never implemented. Perhaps it fell down the back of a filing cabinet, following the change of Administration in May 1997. It would still be welcomed by the Scottish Police Federation and the Law Society of Scotland.
I have much sympathy with the points that Roseanna Cunningham has made. Breach of the peace has been flagged by harassment since the beginning of 1998. However, statistics show that that measure is not being used effectively. We intend to establish a statistics working group to examine the recording of offences. The other working group that I referred to, the Criminal Courts Rules Council, is also considering the amount of information that can be made available when there is a breach of the peace, even when the offence is flagged by the word harassment on the schedule. Roseanna Cunningham makes a valid point.
I am obliged to the minister for that useful information, which I have been unable to get from other sources. I have been advised widely that nobody who works in the courts is aware of that measure ever having been implemented. Clearly, if it has been used at all, it has been used only a handful of times. Nevertheless, it should be an important part of assessing sentences. Sentencing is about punishment. That small change did not require legislation, nor do many such measures. It would make a difference if it was implemented properly and consistently.
Sentencing is about punishment, but we must also consider protecting victims and potential victims. The minister talked about non-harassment orders, the existing provisions for which have also been raised with me, because of the difficulty that arises: there is no specific provision in the legislation for interim orders. I understand that a degree of creativity is going on in a number of courts in order to deal with that procedural difficulty, but the solution that one or two sheriffs appear to have arrived at might well be challengeable. I suggest that it would take a relatively simple legislative change to sort out that difficulty, and I hope that the minister will consider allowing interim non-harassment orders. As I have little time left, I will write more fully to the minister on that issue.
I hope that the Minister for Justice will take to heart the lesson that he must not just identify from the consultation process the areas of practice that could be improved on—he must ensure that those improvements are implemented and he must monitor closely the progress that is made. Most of all, he must be absolutely insistent that the law that exists right now be used to its fullest extent.
I move amendment S1M-1515.1, to leave out from "and endorses" to end.
I, too, welcome the debate and the Executive's commitment to strengthening the law, procedures and practice. At the same time, I have some sympathy with Roseanna Cunningham's opening remarks. The Executive's motion is virtually a blank cheque, as it does not detail the Executive's proposals for dealing with stalking and harassment. The amendment in my name widens the options and allows for further evidence to be taken in committee, considered and acted upon positively, in line with the principles on which the Parliament is based.
The subject of the debate is extremely serious, but perhaps the chamber will forgive me a moment of levity. Earlier today, we debated fishing and now we are debating stalking. Perhaps we could add a debate on shooting as a penalty for the perpetrators of vicious stalking crimes. Having said that, that may be a step too far, even for me.
The serious implications for victims of the effects of stalking merit the courts taking firm action against those whose actions induce misery, disruption, fear, loss of confidence and depression. However, firm action, which may entail imprisonment, cuts across the Executive's policy on reducing the prison population, as I understand it. I have spoken to many people who believe that the imprisonment of those who constantly badger them is the only way forward if they are to have a fairer way of enjoying life.
We must recognise that evidence is available to show that stalking frequently leads to ever-increasing levels of violence, which progress from initial contact to touch and, ultimately, to violence.
From meetings with senior police officers, it is clear to me that stalking and harassment complaints are treated with great seriousness. However, the police point to the difficulties that they face in pursuing such complaints, given the lack of specific evidence in some cases. Stalkers can be unseen, although sometimes they may be heard—but from which location? Changes in information technology certainly induce that scenario. Evidence of an intrusive presence may be detected in some cases, but frequently the victim has only a feeling or suspicion of such a presence. The victim has no rest in their leisure pursuits or workplace, or as they go about everyday business such as going to the supermarket. At times, that intrusion even enters their homes.
As well as being a threat, modern technology can offer hope. Closed circuit television has proved to be of assistance in some instances and the Minister for Justice may wish to reconsider the cutbacks in support for the expansion of CCTV programmes. Surveillance is all-important to the police at times, but the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 adds restrictions that will perhaps make life for the police a little bit more difficult. Apart from that, surveillance can be extremely time-consuming and there has been a fall in the available resources since the Government inherited them in 1997. The minister's intention to restore the levels of resources is important. He will be judged on the results of his actions, rather than on his present promises.
Since I was elected to Westminster in 1992, a number of extremely distressing cases have been brought to my attention. During my period at Westminster and since, I have concluded that the present breach of the peace legislation does not address the issue in a way that allows full protection for victims. I will not give details of many specific cases as I do not have the consent of those who are directly concerned, but I have been urged to mention the case of the Edmund sisters in Kilwinning. They claim to suffer from harassment that seems to them impossible to curtail. An interesting point that arises as a consequence of their complaints is that the police feel that the use of CCTV cameras to determine the outcome of the case is prevented under the European convention on human rights. At this point, I can only take the police's word for that, but I must admit to some puzzlement. Perhaps the minister could examine that point.
A useful way to address stalking would be to establish track records, the importance of which Roseanna Cunningham underlined. She referred to commitments that the previous Government had given on ensuring that the crimes in an individual's track record are examined and linked. That does not seem to have been followed up, but I note that the minister says that he intends to pursue it and I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will hold him to that.
I recognise that the UK Parliament made a change that allows victims to use the civil courts, but that is insufficient. I identify with Pauline McNeill's comment on legal aid matters. If there were a specific criminal charge, however, I believe that the legal aid argument would be laid aside.
When the country enjoyed the benefits of a Conservative Government, I expressed my concerns about stalking to my colleague, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—then the Scottish Office minister with responsibility for home affairs, now my party whip—but failed to convince him. Happily, I have now convinced him and some of my other colleagues that it is time to move on. Time has gone by and it is recognised that the crime of stalking is becoming more and more serious. We look forward to a time when adequate penalties will be available to the courts to deal with the matter and adequate charges will be available to the police to ensure that the incidence of this crime is curtailed.
We recognise that there are difficulties with definition. However, Janet Anderson's 1996 Westminster bill contained a reasonable definition of the crime of what she considered to be stalking. Roseanna Cunningham made the point that things have moved on since then and that we have to think about various uses of technology, which will mean that other factors have to be taken into account. There is plenty of evidence worldwide of other jurisdictions that have come to terms with the matter and have been able to define the problem. On that basis, I believe that a definition could be found.
At the time of Janet Anderson's bill, the national anti-stalking league stated that it believed that a bad bill would be better than no bill. The Executive has given some thought to the issue under discussion. The consultation process has brought out more information and there should now be a way ahead.
During First Minister's question time, I heard the First Minister express envy over the fact that David McLetchie can ask him questions but he cannot reciprocate. If the Administration does not act quickly—if it just makes promises but does not act on stalking—I can see David McLetchie fulfilling the First Minister's wish: Henry McLeish will be asking First Minister David McLetchie the questions in the future.
I move amendment S1M-1515.2, to leave out: "endorses the Scottish Executive's proposals" and insert "will endorse practical proposals".
It is clear that no one wants the current situation to remain, so there is an obligation on the Parliament to determine how to strengthen the current laws or, alternatively, to create a new offence, because stalking and harassment affect people's lives.
To illustrate the need to act fast, I will discuss the facts of the case of Kerry-Anne Thomson. She was 26 years old, and was shot dead by Kenneth Easton, who had become obsessed with her. They had dated a few times before she told him that she was not interested. He stalked her for a year and tried to abduct her outside a nightclub. He broke into her home and slashed her clothes. Kerry-Anne took out a civil interdict against Easton, but he ignored it. Sadly, Kerry-Anne was found dead in her car in August 1997, in a remote country lane. Easton had turned the gun on himself, and died in police custody the following day.
Two important points arise from that case. First, the civil interdict was ignored because it had no teeth—so the importance of Jim Wallace's statement cannot be ignored. Secondly, it is important for us to understand the nature of stalking. It is not just about people who know each other well; it is often about people who hardly know each other at all.
As other members have said, one of the difficulties with stalking—as with other new offences—is how to define the crime. One way or another, we will need some guidance on what we mean by stalking and harassment. As Victim Support Scotland pointed out to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the two words are not always interchangeable—they can mean different things.
Obsessional stalkers are thought to be the most common type. There are also love-obsessional stalkers: persistent stalkers who fantasise that they are in a relationship with a victim. There is delusional stalking, and there is false victimisation, in which a person claims to be the victim of a non-existent stalker, or reports the person with whom she or he is obsessed to the police. It is important to recognise the variety of types of stalker, and we must legislate for that.
Whether we strengthen existing laws or create a new offence, we should encompass three aspects. The first is intentional, repeated behaviour that is not reciprocated by the victim, who is in a state of fear or alarm. The second covers instances where there is a credible threat of violence, and the third covers both the first two when there is a suggestion that a person's life may be in danger as a result. Laws in other countries do not always have a definition that includes people's being harassed in the sense that they are in a state of fear and alarm. Distress to the victim should be taken into account here, and wide guidance should be issued on it.
As the minister pointed out, one of the problems is that not much research has been done on who is being stalked. We need to undertake that research. The only research about the scale of the problem in the United Kingdom was undertaken by the University of Leicester. According to its survey, 43 per cent of women reported being followed in the street; 29 per cent said that they had received excessive and unwanted telephone calls; and 16 per cent reported continuing spying.
The only available survey on the gender aspect of stalking was carried out in the United States, where women victims identified 94 per cent of stalkers as male; 60 per cent of male victims reported that the stalking was by other males. We need such data for Scotland to sort out how we are to address the problem here.
Although it appears that the majority of victims of stalking are women, we must also be sure to protect male victims, and the children who are affected, who are often forgotten about. Stalking targets also include various minority groups. Victim Support gave evidence that 50 per cent of lesbian and gay respondents to a survey that was conducted in Edinburgh reported that they had been the victims of stalking.
We must all concentrate on the question of whether the law is adequate. We know that Scots law will be more comprehensive on this matter in future, as we hope to pass Maureen Macmillan's proposed bill on domestic abuse, which has already been considered by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. As members heard, Jim Wallace also announced some important changes to the law.
The question that we must ask ourselves is whether that will be enough. What emerged from the evidence that I took as reporter on this issue to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee was the need to bring cases to higher courts. If we do not do that, we will be left with a problem. Sentencing policy must be tougher. Judges must be given information about the nature of the breach of the peace, because if the offence is not assessed as harassment, they do not pass the appropriate sentence. The Law Society made that suggestion, and I hope that the Executive will adopt it.
Other members, too, will have constituents who have been subjected to stalking and harassment. I emphasise the point that Jim Wallace allowed me to make in an intervention. I do not see why women in domestic abuse situations, where their lives are in danger and a crime has been committed, should have to pay to pursue their case through the civil courts, which they might not be able to afford to do. We have to address that point.
When I reported to the committee, I was not in favour of creating a new offence, for all the reasons that Roseanna Cunningham has given. However, a time scale has to be set for any attempts to beef up the current law and procedures, because if those attempts do not work, we will not have achieved anything even though we know that lives are at stake. The Executive should consider setting a time scale so that we can see how we are getting on with this. The task will be very tough. We are asking judges, the police, and all the agencies in the criminal justice system to change the way in which they do things. We know that that will not be easy. Let us set a time scale. If we need to create a new offence, let us not close the door on that option.
We now move to the open debate. I can allocate up to five minutes for each speaker.
On Friday 4 September 1998, a young woman—a mother of three young children—was found dying. Marilyn McKenna had told her family that she feared she would be found dead in a pool of blood and, sadly, that fear became a reality. It was no random killing. Marilyn's killer claimed that he loved her, and he killed her, seemingly, in the name of love. Almost half of all women who are murdered in Scotland meet their death at the hands of a current or former partner.
Marilyn had lived with her killer for six months. The relationship became abusive and ended at her insistence after her partner broke her nose in a violent assault. Marilyn pressed charges and, early in 1997, Stuart Drury was convicted of breach of the peace, fined £200 and ordered to pay £400 in compensation. However, that was not the end. It was the beginning of a year of hell for Marilyn and her family. He would not give up. He stalked her at work, at her home and even when she picked up her children from the nursery.
Marilyn's lawyer applied for an interim interdict, but when she tried to enforce it, she was informed by the police that they had no powers of arrest because she was not married to, or living with, her abuser at the time of the incident.
In November 1997, after a violent incident at Marilyn's place of work, Drury was again convicted of breach of the peace. On that occasion, sentence was deferred for a year. Marilyn McKenna was murdered before that year was up. Indeed, before the year was up, a further three charges of breach of the peace had been made against Drury, but it was too late for Marilyn.
What can be done to prevent further tragedies like that of Marilyn McKenna? Marilyn cried out for help. She put her faith in the criminal justice system and was let down across the board: by civil law, over the interdict; by criminal law, which gave her no protection; and by the courts, which failed to grasp the seriousness of the threat to her life.
We need systems to track men who are accused of stalking and harassment. It was subsequently discovered that Marilyn's killer had previous convictions for assault and stalking of no fewer than two former girlfriends. Police systems must be set up so that future incidents are not viewed in isolation, as they have tended to be.
Training is needed for police, sheriffs, judges and procurators fiscal so that the seriousness of the consequences for victims is taken on board when such crimes are reported. As has been said, in Scots law stalking is the crime with no name.
I accept fully that breach of the peace is a wide-ranging offence and can be prosecuted at the sheriff and high courts. However, as has been said, the average person regards the crime of breach of the peace as a somewhat minor offence. If we are to continue to prosecute such crimes as breach of the peace, we must identify and differentiate the much more serious element that is the crime of stalking and harassment. Let us give a name to that terrible crime.
As a Parliament, we have a duty to ensure that any new law is applied properly in all departments of the criminal justice system. Stuart Drury stalked, harassed and murdered Marilyn McKenna, supposedly in the name of love. In the name of justice and humanity, let us try to ensure that we prevent similar, awful tragedies from occurring for other women.
I welcome the debate on stalking and harassment. I share many of Roseanna Cunningham's views, particularly on the legal remedies that are in place but are not being enforced by many of the agencies, and on the culture that unfortunately exists in the legal system. We have to move forward on that.
Kay Ullrich has raised the tragic case of my former constituent, Marilyn McKenna, and described the circumstances. I welcome what she said. I too will speak about Marilyn's case. I have a statement in front of me that gives in graphic, tragic detail the incidents that Marilyn and her three young children had to endure because of Stuart Drury's obsessive behaviour.
One of the concerns raised by Marilyn's family is the lack of support provided by agencies to victims of stalking. While the agencies show some care, they are not providing a joined-up approach to supporting victims of stalking. I would not rule out the possibility of legislation to ensure that agencies do provide a joined-up approach. Marilyn was dealing with bureaucracy over being rehoused outwith the area in which Stuart Drury was operating and she had great difficulty being rehoused as a result of problems in police reports going to the housing department and because it was referred to as a domestic incident. We have to get away from that terminology and definition. Marilyn's case was being treated as a "domestic" when it was her former partner who was harassing her.
We must put together a supporting framework for victims. I would not rule out setting up a harassment and stalking unit where case workers can support victims during the very difficult period that they have to endure. One of the problems that Marilyn's family told me of was that she had very few people to turn to. We must consider a unit being set up to ensure that someone like Marilyn, and their family, could speak to someone who could help at such a difficult time.
We have raised the issue of a stalking law. I agree with Pauline McNeill on the need for further research on that. In the memory of victims such as Marilyn, we should not allow the issue to be lost. Very sadly, as a result of the tragedy, there are three young children who no longer have the very caring mother Marilyn was, and a family who no longer have a caring sister and daughter. We must ensure that such an incident is not repeated. It would be a great credit to the Parliament if we could put a framework in place to ensure that such tragic events are not repeated.
Despite the fairly vague terms of the Executive's motion, two things have emerged. First, there is a general consensus about the direction in which we should be heading. Secondly, there is a general agreement that much more work is necessary in the months ahead, before this matter can come to a conclusion.
We have two options: either we operate on the basis of the current law or we legislate. If we were to take the first option and stand by the law as it is at the moment, the question of awareness comes into play. There is an arguable case that the law as it stands is fully equipped to deal with such matters. Pauline McNeill and Kay Ullrich were right to highlight how what at first may be a nuisance can latterly become a tragedy. It is well that we remember that. However, as Roseanna Cunningham pointed out, charges of breach of the peace can be taken on indictment. Although, in practice, the High Court has not yet, under common law, imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, an eight-year sentence was recently imposed. The provisions are in place and deterrent sentences could be imposed. That is something to remember.
The current law on breach of the peace is sufficiently wide to include such matters, even under the narrowest definition. The narrowest definition was in the case of Logan v Jessop, where a breach of the peace had to involve a degree of alarm on the part of the individual. Arguably, the law is in place. Where it might have fallen down is in the fact that there has not been appropriate awareness on the part of the police, the prosecuting authorities and the judiciary that actions are necessary and that cases should be processed so as to deter such a course of conduct.
If we are not going to stick with the current law, we must bring in fresh legislation, which could be a complex matter. My research indicates that nowhere else has introduced such legislation, apart from the state of South Dakota in the USA, which has a definition of stalking. That is something that the minister might want to consider. I suggest that it is not appropriate for a court hearing a case of stalking to deal with someone who has previous convictions for a similar offence without being told of those convictions. I was quite surprised at Jim Wallace's comments—although I fully accept them—that such cases are now flagged.
If we are not prepared to go into complex legislation, there might be a case for creating a new offence and ensuring that those who are charged with stalking and who have committed previous offences are charged in a special capacity—in that they have been found guilty of a previous offence. The minister will be aware that there is provision in Scots law under several statutes to do that.
If we were to go down the road of creating a statutory offence, there is an argument that such matters should be dealt with on indictment. Such cases can be very serious indeed. However, there is always the difficulty of definition. What, on the face of it, might be trivial initially, may grow in seriousness. Nowadays, in domestic matters, people are perhaps a little bit more inclined to go to the law as a first resort and that must be taken into consideration.
Can I remind members that we are not talking just about domestic relationships or the very worst results and tragedies? There are umpteen more victims of behaviour such as poison-pen letters, crank mail and other conduct that can go on for years. The term harassment should be attached to stalking—it must be stalking and harassment.
I fully accept that argument, which merely demonstrates—if any demonstration is needed—how complex the matter is. It has to be looked at carefully, and I look forward to seeing final responses from the committee and the Executive.
Stalking and harassment is threatening and frightening. We all admit that the law as it stands does not do nearly enough to protect victims and punish perpetrators. As convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on men's violence against women and children, I have had the benefit of discussions with member organisations on this issue, but I am by no means speaking on behalf of the group; I would rather express my own opinions on the matter. However, I find it difficult to speak to this motion, which endorses proposals that we do not yet know about, so instead I intend to talk about the options for improving the law to deal with stalking and harassment.
As Bill Aitken said, we effectively have two options: to improve our practice of the law that is already in place, or to create an entirely new offence that criminalises stalking. If we stick with the existing law, it needs to be improved. At the moment, stalking tends to be charged as a breach of the peace. It is a versatile offence and can be prosecuted in the High Court if the crime demands it. It is also a charge that the police are happy with and are used to using, but public perception of the offence of breach of the peace is that it is not a serious offence, so when it is enforced it is perceived as a relatively minor issue. Effectively, it disguises the severity of the offence and does not convey the reprehensible nature of the crime or its intrusion into the victim's life.
Perhaps that is a cosmetic argument. We should encourage greater use of the offence by higher courts and a dramatic change in attitude towards what the charge of breach of the peace can be used for. In addition, a charge of breach of the peace could be made specific to the crime. The alternative is to create a new statutory offence. I can see the relevance of that because at the moment stalking is not a crime, and perhaps it should be.
Stalking is a crime only if it takes place in the context of another offence, such as a breach of the peace. Creating an offence of stalking would allow for earlier intervention by the police and might deter people from stalking someone if they thought that they would no longer be charged only with breach of the peace. However, that would not be without its problems. Defining the offence of stalking in statute would be difficult, and it would provide parameters for solicitors to try to escape from.
If is difficult to know the best course of action to take, as little or no research has been conducted on stalking and harassment in Scotland and most of the available facts and figures were produced in the United States. As my colleague Christine Grahame said in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee when it considered consultation on this matter:
"the initial step is to change practices and systems, so that we are really informed before we consider changing the law".—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 21 June 2000; c 1369.]
Any change in the law should be carefully thought out and should not be too inflexible, so as not to exclude new methods of stalking, such as cyberstalking through the internet and e-mail.
This debate is a stage in the process—the welcome process—of increasing recognition of the serious nature of the patterns of behaviour that are described as stalking or harassment, and the determination to tackle them. That runs in parallel with the also welcome reappraisal of how we think of and deal with violence in the home and in relationships.
In the past, attitudes to stalking tended to be dismissive: "You have been followed but nothing happened. What are you getting excited about?" There is more understanding now of the serious effects that this type of behaviour has on victims, even without physical violence: the fear and terror that is suffered, because what the imagination can conjure up can be far worse than being attacked sometimes; the disabling of the victim, who is frightened and unable to go out, frightened and unable to socialise, and frightened to stay at home; and the gross, ruthless and total invasion of privacy. Those are now widely recognised as genuinely nasty stuff.
The emerging argument concerns whether the existing legal framework is adequate or whether new laws are required to deal with the issue as a defined offence. I agree with members who have said that there are advantages to the flexibility of existing law. Some of the problems with using breach of the peace are more perceived than real. A breach of the peace is not necessarily a minor offence, but sometimes the public consider it as that and sometimes it is used in that way.
A great deal can be done to use existing law more effectively and take measures such as raising awareness, providing better training, tightening procedures and establishing better recording, exchange and use of information. The answer to a problem is not always to create new legislation. In the recent past, ill-thought-through, knee-jerk legislation has sometimes been more problematic than useful or effective.
Having said that, it is evident that some legislative developments will be necessary. I welcome the proposals that Mr Wallace outlined. It is my firm belief that good legislation is rooted in good information. The current consultation and consideration of the matter has revealed the paucity of robust information.
I am pleased to hear that determined action is to be taken on the improvements to training practice and procedures that can be undertaken without changes to the law. They will take place alongside a comprehensive programme of research to establish the extent and nature of stalking and harassment in Scotland, among other things. That knowledge is essential to determine properly the legislation that will be required and the baseline against which the effectiveness of action that is taken—whether under existing law or through extension of the law—can be measured.
My final point concerns the new phenomenon of cyberstalking—harassment and intimidation via the internet. The victim has no idea where the stalker operates—it could be next door or the other side of the world. It involves obvious problems of jurisdiction and is tied up in the general difficulties of regulating and policing the internet. That will have to be addressed globally.
We are moving along an important road to the effective protection of innocent people. Unnecessary delay is not to be tolerated, because it will be measured in misery or worse for some of our fellow citizens. Properly informed consideration will be needed to get legislative change. We must not shirk that stage.
I welcome the tone and content of the minister's speech and of all that members have said so far. It is generally agreed that non-harassment orders—whether civil or criminal—have not been a success and are not being used. In Lothian last year, only 17 non-harassment orders were obtained, compared with 100 interdicts. There have been complaints of operational difficulties. The police are not always informed about the order, perhaps because it is not clear who has the duty to tell them. It is crucial that proper procedures for the orders are put in place.
Most important, the sanction of the power of arrest for breaching a non-harassment order does not exist. I was interested in the Minister for Justice's request to incorporate such a power in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's proposed bill on protection from abuse. I hope that the committee will accommodate that, because that would make the difference between life and death for some victims.
Victims of harassment tend to prefer to take out an interdict, to which no power of arrest is attached. An interdict usually means that no action is taken until a criminal offence is committed, and the result is a breach of the peace or assault charge. As many members have said, that involves problems. Victims and the public do not consider breach of the peace to be a serious charge, no matter what assertions the legal establishment makes to the contrary. Public perception will be changed only if the courts take harassment seriously and deal with it in the higher courts, as Pauline McNeill said.
Even an assault charge does not always do justice to the victim. A constituent who was harassed by a former employee got in touch with me about such a situation. She wrote:
"I am expected to give evidence in a case which does not reveal the whole circumstances, relates only to the actual offence, and does not reveal to the court the purpose of the assault and that it is only one of a series of breaches of the interdict granted to me."
I believe that there must be some mechanism by which the court can be informed that one simple offence—breach of the peace or assault—is part of a pattern of harassment. At the moment, it would seem that the rules in criminal cases do not allow that, and since criminal proceedings take precedence over civil proceedings, a criminal charge of breach of the peace or assault will be used, rather than the breach of interdict, even if the victim would prefer the latter, believing that the whole history of harassment would then be addressed.
I am glad about the minister's announcement that a working party is to consider the criminal court rules in such cases, but I worry about the resistance of the legal establishment to change. I would prefer that solution to the solution of making harassment or stalking a statutory offence, since making them statutory offences would involve extremely difficult issues of definition. As Roseanna Cunningham said, definitions can soon become out of date. I am concerned that the police and the courts properly realise what constitutes harassment.
I am especially concerned about the stalking and harassment that occurs when a woman has left an abusive partner and that ex-partner is determined to continue to exercise power over her by intimidation. That kind of harassment is often psychological and may consist of actions that to an outsider may seem innocuous, even friendly. Receiving a bouquet of flowers every week from an abusive ex-partner can be deeply terrifying to the recipient. It is of the utmost importance that the police and the judiciary treat non-physical harassment as seriously as physical harassment. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee's proposals for a protection from abuse bill, which will be debated in two weeks' time, will provide protection for some victims of harassment.
I must mention again my concern about the cost of access to justice. As the minister knows, I believe that people should not have to pay for their own protection and I urge him to consider how we might make protective interdicts and non-harassment orders considerably less expensive. A special case is to be made—I am glad that he is aware of the injustice. I ask him to consider again the issue of working families tax credit impacting on eligibility for legal aid.
When those who carry out stalking and harassment come to court, they should be psychologically assessed to judge how much of a threat they may pose in future, so that the real tragedies can be averted.
I hope that it will be misunderstood in the context of this debate on stalking and harassment if I begin by declaring an interest, in the form of my membership of the Law Society of Scotland and my consultancy with Ross Harper and Murphy.
This has been an extremely good debate—colleagues have made not one bad speech. Like them, I welcome Jim Wallace's speech. Culture is one of the important aspects that have been touched on. I will give an example from my experience, in a slightly different context. I had a case some years ago when a client complained to his landlord about the dampness problems in his house. He obviously became too much of a pest, as he came back from shopping with his wife to find that the doors and windows of his house had been removed. There was enormous difficulty explaining to the police in Rutherglen that that was an offence, particularly in statute, because there was not a history of private lettings in the area and the police were not used to dealing with such situations. They were not trained in what to do about it. I suspect that in the west end of Glasgow, where there are more private lettings, the situation would have been different.
I use that example to illustrate the issue of culture. It is extremely important that the police and the procurator fiscal's department understand the background and details of particular cases. What may begin with the police as a form of charge can be changed by the procurator fiscal; if he is doing his job properly, it will often, once the full circumstances are known, be changed into something more substantial or different from the original charge. On the whole, I tend towards the idea that we should think about the instigation of a new offence. I say that because it becomes much easier with a new offence—with a new title—to identify and deal with the specific situations that arise in harassment and stalking cases. The difference between the typical breach of the peace case and these cases is the element of persistence and repetition that emerges with them.
In my experience in the realm of family law, I have come across a number of cases where there is harassment in the background. It quite frequently relates to disputes about the breakdown of the marriage, to the on-going attraction that one party thinks he has for the other party or to disputes about access. Whatever the reason, it can be extremely frightening, distressing and difficult for the other party to deal with. We should be aware of such things when discussing changes to the family law system that Jim Wallace has been talking about.
Maureen Macmillan touched on something that I was surprised had not been mentioned before. We must consider how we deal with the situation once we get offenders into custody. It is all very well locking them up for 30 days, for 60 days or even for eight years, but at some point they have to come out again. It is to be hoped that when they come out, there will not be the same fear of repetition of the offence. I suspect, although I do not know, that there is a heavy element of mental health problems behind some of the cases that we deal with in this context.
I support Roseanna Cunningham's call for the introduction of a provision for interim non-harassment orders. My firm had a case in that regard that was reported early on in the law reports.
However much we improve the civil law, criminal law—without the personal element of the victim having to bring an action—is by far the better procedure. I wonder whether, in extending the powers of arrest in various directions, we ought not to use that as a lever into the criminal system, rather than as a mechanism for keeping somebody in custody for a day or so while decisions are made by a private lawyer about civil breaches of interdict procedure.
It is important, as Jim Wallace said at the beginning of the debate, not to stand where we are. There must be action on the matter. This is a growing and dangerous problem that must be dealt with. The measures proposed by the minister today go a considerable distance towards improving the situation.
I am heartened to learn from the Minister for Justice that his objective is the same as that of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. The Conservatives welcome the announcement of a pilot scheme and look forward to hearing of a successful outcome.
Roseanna Cunningham has eloquently detailed my own concerns. Breach of the peace was my area of habitual judgment in the district courts. Roseanna is quite right to point out that the existing remedy through breach of the peace would be adequate. The difficulty is in recording incidents and the burden of proof of a course of conduct. That makes a successful prosecution an achievement, so we support the suggestion that interim non-harassment orders should be introduced.
Phil Gallie gave our view on having a new offence of stalking. It would make the existing law work more effectively if people knew what stalking was, but the definition is a great difficulty. We would like improved guidance and training for sheriffs, police and judges in their practice and procedures. Interim orders could do much to help many women.
It is not only physical stalking that we should be concerned about. I have personal experience of a telephone stalker. There can be nothing worse than somebody being at leisure in their own home only to discover that the next call is from someone who wants to harass and menace them. It has happened to me and I know that there is nothing worse; it makes one feel afraid in one's own home. Paul Martin and other members have mentioned this problem, and it is something that we should consider.
I looked up legal definitions of harassment on the internet, one of which describes a stalker as
"a person who . . . sends, by means of a public telecommunication system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or . . . sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another"
such a message. Believe me, it is needless anxiety. My experience was certainly enough to cure me of any illusion that it was just harmless fun. It is not harmless fun by any manner of means.
Pauline McNeill mentioned the experience of one young woman. Kay Ullrich and Paul Martin also commented on the experience of Marilyn McKenna. It is shameful for something like that to end in someone's death. What isolation that woman must have felt—who would believe her beyond her own family? Who would understand that that kind of attention could have such a grave effect on her? I fail to see why we cannot take action on something like that.
Bill Aitken's position was that we can either stick with what we have or we can legislate. How do we define an annoyance or an irritation before it becomes a tragedy? Gil Paterson, who unfortunately is not here, chairs the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on men's violence towards women and children, of which I am a member. I know some of the stories that Gil has heard. He too could have listed a load of horrific experiences that have been relayed to him.
Nora Radcliffe's point about victims who are scared to stay at home hit home to me. I have been there; I know how difficult it is. Maureen Macmillan and I have debated many times the difficulties with interdicts and the action that can and cannot be taken. We need something with teeth, not something that people will look at and say, "What does it mean?" because we have no power to act on it.
I was grateful for Robert Brown's comments about the differences and was interested to hear his perception that a new offence would be preferable. We wait to see the outcome of the pilot study and will be supportive of action that will make life considerably less difficult for a lot more women.
A number of compelling arguments have been made for the need to tighten up the regulations and to examine current legislation and the way in which our criminal justice system deals with stalking and harassment. A number of the strong cases that have been made have referred to individuals who have suffered as a result of stalking or harassment. Kay Ullrich, Paul Martin and Pauline McNeill all referred to such cases of which they have experience.
In recent years, a number of high-profile cases in Scotland and elsewhere have given stalking and harassment a major focus in the media. As a result, there has been growing public concern about the way in which the system addresses stalking and harassment. The primary focus of concern tends to centre on the inadequacy of our present criminal justice system to provide protection to individuals because of the attitudes that prevail about the serious nature of stalking and harassment. Several members have referred to the fact that stalking and harassment are on-going issues. The matter was debated in Westminster back in 1996. That begs the question, "Why has it taken until 2001 to take real action to address that on-going problem?"
Roseanna Cunningham referred to the debate that took place in 1996 and the possibility that was raised then of attaching harassment to the charges against those who were found guilty of breach of the peace, so that harassment could be included on their charge schedule. As the minister pointed out, it has been possible to include harassment since 1998, but the measure has not been implemented. To some extent, that illustrates the nub of the problem: there are provisions, but they are not used adequately.
That leads me to the point that there needs to be a change in the culture of the criminal justice system and the way in which it addresses the serious nature of stalking and harassment. I welcome the fact that the minister has asked ACPOS to examine training and guidance for those who work in the criminal justice system. Will he say what time scale will be set, so that we will have some idea of when the provisions will be implemented?
The minister also referred to best practice throughout the system. As I am sure he is aware, one of the continuing concerns that people have about our criminal justice system is inconsistency of application. When he winds up, I hope that the deputy minister will refer to some ways in which it is hoped such inconsistencies will be addressed when new guidance and training provisions are introduced.
The minister referred to five points that were flagged up by the consultation exercise. The third point was that cost prohibits people from going to court to take civil action. Pauline McNeill made an important intervention, during which she stated that individuals feel that they cannot take action through the civil courts because of the limitations or inaccessibility of legal aid. On a recent visit to Glasgow sheriff court, that experience was highlighted to me by solicitors who deal with individuals who have suffered from domestic violence.
Although the minister referred to several ways in which he hopes to tackle that problem, I believe that the point about the cost of accessing civil courts to take out non-harassment orders or any other appropriate form of interdict must still be addressed. Although the minister mentioned a pilot scheme for lay advisers in Women's Aid projects, I am reluctant to accept that as a suitable solution to the problem. However, I would be grateful if the minister indicated the time scale that will be set for the establishment of that pilot scheme and its intended duration.
I echo comments that my colleague Roseanna Cunningham made about the motion that has been put before the chamber. It is vague and our amendment was lodged on that basis. A ministerial statement would have been more appropriate to enable us to consider the proposals—we could then have had a debate at a later stage. However, given the minister's comments this afternoon, the SNP will withdraw its amendment and support the Executive's motion.
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. It has progressed discussions that, as Michael Matheson pointed out, have been under way in several forums over a number of years. It is clear that members from all parties feel deeply about this subject, and rightly so. I am sure that most members have had constituency cases in which people were scared, upset and angry about behaviour that they felt was causing them harassment, and in many cases much worse than that, as we have heard.
It is therefore understandable that arguments have been made for a new statutory offence. Most people would agree that clarity and simplicity make for effective law, but evidence-based law making is the right way forward and evidence is still lacking. Research is the key to understanding the motivations behind stalking and the forms that it takes and is, therefore, the most appropriate solution.
That is in line with the views that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and Victim Support Scotland, among others, expressed in their responses to the consultation paper. Both those bodies pointed to the need for greater understanding of the issues. That position also reflects the mix of support, reluctant support and doubt about the idea of a new statutory offence that has been expressed in this debate. Until we have substantially improved our understanding of stalking, we cannot be in a position to create good law. Good law is important in this matter.
Several members have pointed out the failure to implement the current laws and the danger of bringing in new laws that we fail to use effectively. We cannot hope to find a definition that offers more than the current law until we have a greater knowledge of the types of behaviour that might comprise stalking.
It seems that I have heard those words before. In 1996 a Government of a different complexion made the same comments in the House of Commons. It is now four years later and there has been a lot of research and information gathering. We are surely in a position to act more positively now.
We are in a position to act more positively because of this Parliament and because of committees such as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which will not allow us to do nothing for a further four years. Doing nothing seems impossible, given the level of interest in this issue.
I will talk about the timetable later, but I believe—I think that the Executive believes—that we are unable not to make progress. We will have to demonstrate progress because of the level of scrutiny that we face.
I want to repeat Jim Wallace's assurance that we have not ruled out the introduction of a new offence. Pauline McNeill made a fair point about time scales. We will commission research imminently and we envisage a report being available by summer next year. That will give us time to get the information that we need. We will revisit the issue then, when we will consider whether, in the meantime, there has been any improvement in the application and effectiveness of existing law. That gives members a kind of timetable for bringing the issue back to the Parliament.
I must emphasise that we are not looking to fill a vacuum in the law. There would be no question of awaiting the outcome of research if people were left unprotected now. However, that is in no way to deny that some people have been failed by existing law. There have been tragic cases in which harassment has gone unchecked and has led to serious assault and even murder, as we have heard. However, there is law in place which, if it operates effectively, should protect people who are suffering at the hands of those who harass them.
The use of the law on breach of the peace might not be universally popular, because that might be perceived as too vague or too trivial. However, it has strengths: it is flexible; it is widely understood; it is used; and it results in custodial sentences. Indeed, as we have heard, one of the strengths of the charge of breach of the peace is that, as a common law offence, it can attract the heaviest of penalties. Roseanna Cunningham is quite right—in theory at least, the penalty could extend to life imprisonment. That brings out the weakness in Phil Gallie's point that a new offence would provide adequate sentencing. A new offence could not carry a heavier theoretical penalty than does breach of the peace. Even with a new offence, the key would lie in the way that it was applied and used.
Several members have referred to the new crime of cyberstalking. Roseanna Cunningham pointed out that an earlier solution to the general issue of stalking might have left us with cyberstalking falling outside the law. The flexibility of the breach of the peace law helps us in such circumstances. It was used last year when a man in Ayr was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for harassing a young woman using e-mail. In that case, breach of the peace involved the sending of abusive e-mails and it resulted in a nine-month jail sentence. The sheriff commented on the ability of the common law to deal with electronic harassment.
However, we can increase the effective use and application of the law. The exchange between the Deputy First Minister and Roseanna Cunningham on breach of the peace and harassment demonstrated that the measures that we have are not being implemented fully. Paul Martin made an important point that responding for victims of harassment is an obligation for many agencies, not only the police and the judiciary. We take that point and we will consider it.
Existing law can be improved. We will act to strengthen the existing legal provisions. In particular, we will add statutory powers of arrest to non-harassment orders at the earliest opportunity. No one should be in any doubt that breach of an order is serious and will be treated as such by the justice system. Breach of a non-harassment order can result in a prison sentence of up to five years.
Several speakers made points about interim non-harassment orders. Our initial reaction is concern that it would be difficult to grant such an order, breach of which could be a serious criminal offence, without the defendant being heard. However, we would like to take time to reflect on the suggestions and we will respond in writing to Roseanna Cunningham, who raised the issue first this afternoon.
In conclusion, we believe that the package of measures that has been outlined today is sensible and sound and moves us forward. It will improve the application and awareness of existing laws at the earliest opportunity.
Furthermore, the research will improve our understanding of how a new offence might be defined and how it might work.
Above all, the package must offer better reassurance to anybody who fears that they are the victim of a stalker or harasser that protection and redress are available and that their concerns will be understood and addressed by the justice system. We all share that concern. We will move toward that aim this afternoon and will continue to do so in future.