Is this correct police action?

[FastingFaster]

I've had to support a colleague who's messed up this week. He's a big (enormous) teddybear of a man, who utterly heartbroken following a break up, sent too many messages over a 2 week period and twice sat in his car out side her house while sending the messages.

He has accepted a "simple caution" for "Stalking without fear/harm/distress between x and y dates". This is all factual, I have seen the paperwork, which sets out the timeline of events.

There is no suggestion at all that there was any threat or violence and the victim doesn't claim to have been scared of him, but obviously he was a damn nuisance and the behaviour was just not OK.

He accepted the caution without any legal advice (although offered) because he just wanted it over with. Unfortunately, as he works with children, this will impact him forever, no doubt some will say rightly so. It shouldn't prevent him working with children but it will come up and need to be declared/discussed/risk assessed evey time he has a dbs check for a new job.

I wonder if he did the right thing accepting the caution? Police told him he would have been charged and prosecuted if he hadn't, but I wonder? Would it have been considered in the public interest to bring this prosecution? He's guilty of sending some messages and twice sitting outside, but would a court have defined that as stalking when it was over such a short period?

It's good that quick and decisive action was taken, after so long when women were complaining of long term and nasty stalking were ignored, but I do wonder if it's the correct priority when they cant atrend burglaries and street robberies! I'm also a bit shocked at the pressure put on a young man in distress to accept a caution, but no doubt that's my naivety.

Obviously male toxicity against women can't be dismissed and I've got myself into trouble three times this week on just this issue. Once calling out "banter" at work, again objecting to offensive chanting against a female physio at football and by trying to explain that "good" dad's teaching their DDs to be princesses is less helpful than teaching them everything they need to know to never be dependent on a man! So usually, I'd be very much on favour of this behaviour being called out and it's right that he was "spoken to" and it stopped, but is this sensible policing? Would the charge have been made and prosecuted?

He's just ready to learn from it and move on, I'm interested in it as a bit of social commentary on (rightly) changing times.

Absolutely he should have had a caution.
no question about it at all.

he harassed a woman.

Sorry but he broke the law. He had the choice of refusing the caution and taking his chances with a prosecution. But I would have supported a prosecution and that would ahve been worse for him. There isn't a point at which "harmless" harassment becomes "serious" harassment - it is all harassment and the fact is that for too many years the police have made judgements like that, leading to escalation and worse. He may be heartbroken, but he is an adult, he knows what his actions amount to, and he knows the impact they would have on others and on himself and his career.

It is in the public interest to end violence against women and girls, and whether his former partner was frightened or not, stalking is an act of harassment which is a form of violence. Your calling out others suggests that you already know this, but choose to decide that it's ok if it happens to be someone you know / like, but not in others. That isn't naivity - it is double standards.

I've haven't it's OK at all. I'm interested in what would have happened if he hadn't accepted the caution. Would a prosecution have been successful?

Sounds like you're all for woman's rights until it might negatively impact a male friend 🤨

So, yet another thread about a 'lovely, harmless' male who is harassing a female and again its such a shame for them or a query why that due process is being followed?!

I think that this is the 4th one in a week or something?

I obviously haven't expressed myself well. He knows what he did was wrong, he's very remorseful and I have absolutely no wish to minimise it.

I'm interested in the legal position. Have things changed so much that this prosecution could/would have been brought and been successful?

Courts are so snarled up with delays that it would have taken months to get to prosecution stage, all that stress for him in meantime. He didn't have good choices.

A lot of people who work with kids have some kind of criminal record they have to explain. Not end of world.

Without any evidence how can anyone say that a prosecution would be successful or not? We’ve just got your version of his version of events. He accepted the caution. Who’s to say that his behaviour wouldn’t have escalated had he not been spoken to when he was. Put yourself in the position of the ex, two weeks of incessant messages, he’s outside your home and by your own admission he’s enormous so you would be powerless.

Presumably the police have copies of the messages, all they would need is a compelling witness statement placing him at the scene (or some kind of GPS data from his phone or car) and they've got an open and shut case. A very easy, straightforward prosecution.

It's hard not to see you as an apologist when you're querying the one thing your friend has done right, accepting his guilt by taking a caution.

He's not my friend. I've had to deal with the fallout as his employer and I'm interested in the procedure followed.

You've got the police version of events, as written in the caution.

And I've said absolutely I'd expect him to be spoken to. In the event that was enough to make it stop, actually it stopped before the police involvement because it was reported to me at work and I spoke to him. The police didn't visit him until a week later.

Surely how the procedure was followed isn’t your responsibility

No of course it's not. I'm just interested in the way things are changing.

For the better I'd say!

I think you are going to get a hard time on here because of his behaviour. Maybe you should quit while you’re ahead.

I would hope that he'd have been prosecuted if he hadn't accepted the caution but I think it would probably fall victim to the lack of capacity in the CPS/courts. Different offence entirely but someone I know has has 4 court dates postponed over the last three years and it's likely that the prosecution will drop the charges because it's too much hassle ('not in the public interest') to proceed.

Also, it would still be on any enhanced DBS, even if he hadn’t accepted the caution and charges had been dropped. It is relevant so would have been on the DBS as an accusation/police involvement. He’s done the right thing by accepting when he was in the wrong and agreeing to it

No idea about how the courts would have managed it or if it would have even progressed to court or not. The issue of whether to accept a caution is not unique to your friend though, everyone who accepts a caution could have not and possibly it would not have gone to court anyway.

I think the police action seemed reasonable. Sutton outside of someone’s home a couple of times, alongside what I image was a high volume of texts, is a scary red flag. I’m glad they dealt with it quickly and I am glad he has something on his record that shows his behaviour.

hopefully he learns from it and never steps across the line again.

I’d have expected words of advice to be issued then a caution if he continued the course of conduct. Not a caution if there was no previous and he had not been told previously that his conduct was causing harassment alarm or distress.

This massive bloke, not only sent multiple messages, but also intimidated her by sitting outside her house?

Your language is really minimising what he did tbh.

He is probably a 'teddybear of a man' to you, because you're his boss, to that woman he's a huge bloke who's stalking her and making her feel frightened in her own home.

I'm not really sure it's wise to have commentary on what would have happened if he didn't accept the caution either, it sounds like you would go running back to tell him he would have got off with it, if that's the consensus, which would probably make him continue to harass this poor women.

Is 'He's an enormous teddy bear' the new 'built like a brick shit house'?

I'm over the moon they are changing. What I am slightly more concerned about is your attitude as an employer - or so you claim to be. You described him as a colleague you were supporting but now you claim to be acting as the employer. Those are very different things. As an employer, it may well be the case that after proper invetsigation you determine that his offence is not such as to impact on his professional capacity, but you seem overly invested in how this is unfair / a waste of public money / a waste of police time etc. You have a responsibility for the welfare and safety of children, not the public purse or the operation of the law. And certainly not for shielding someone who, through their own actions, has harassed a woman and broken the law. I do hope that you don't approach all your safeguarding issues with "do I think this is really important or not?". As I said, he may not be a risk to children. But in a professional capacity you come to that determination in a very different way than you have done here. And probably not by posting it all over social media where he might be identified.

No one can say exactly what would have happened. There is a huge back log in the courts so very quickly he would have had this hanging over him for years.

Having said this when I did teacher training we were told by the union to never accept a caution without legal representation.

Teddy bears are cuddly and not in control of themselves. This man was and he chose to commit and crime and more importantly he chose to put his wants before the women he supposedly loved.

He is probably a 'teddybear of a man' to you, because you're his boss, to that woman he's a huge bloke who's stalking her and making her feel frightened in her own home.
Exactly this.
Has he said why he sat outside her home?
To watch what she's doing?
To confront her?
To see if she had any people over?
All very controlling!