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.

You've expressed yourself just fine.

A few years ago, had he refused the caution and been charged, CPS would have almost certainly not proceeded with a prosecution for a comparatively low level offence

With the VAWG focus and legislation around stalking, they'd have been more likely to prosecute. He wouldn't have got a custodial sentence but the conviction would be a more serious consequence

Your friend did a bad thing, it doesn't make him a bad person. And you're a good friend for not abandoning him, even tho he's done something against your beliefs

You minimised it in your second sentence by calling him a 'teddy bear of a man' !

You don't know what previous there is on him either...you just don't!

"His ex felt it was her duty as he works with children and we acted more quickly."

This is being hugely minimised and seems like a lot of detail has been excluded/glossed over. Like the content of the text messages,his intentions sitting outside the house etc.

The police will have referred to LADO

How do the police know he's one of the 'good guys' just a bit upset, and not one of the bad guys who turn to violence?
What if another complaint comes in in the future about him, but they can't escalate to the desired outcome because they let the first one slide?
What if he escalates, or the woman being harassed complains, and the police are investigated as to whether they followed the right procedure, or if this incident was a sign that he could escalate in the future?

I get what you mean that we've all likely sent daft messages in the past, but similarly, in the past, I've had my arse and more groped by strangers, been subjected to comments in the streets, had men felt they could take liberties in nightclubs, watched some of that documentary where a man felt it was his right to follow a 'drunk' woman up to her hotel room, suffered from male violence. As have probably 99% of women. Do you know how we make things safer for the female children around us? By stamping on the little things, and making it known it's not acceptable, so hopefully they don't escalate to bigger things. If you work in education, you need to be all over this. It's absolutely right that hes been cautioned, and I hope he tells all his friends, and his future kids, and it stops them from doing the same thing as they don't want a police record.

Don’t assume this - I know from experience that this doesn’t always happen.

If this is the only caution he ever receives it will be eligible for filtering and not come up on an enhanced dbs after a certain amount of time has passed. I think he was right to take the caution, and to change his behaviour now accordingly. Being stalked and harassed is horrendous and needs to be dealt with quickly and effectively, and with the right amount of 'weight' to it. I agree with the caution, and also agree that it is fair that it will be eligible for filtering in due course.

57 times is not a few!

let’s flip this. “I broke up with my ex, he has been bombarding me with text messages and lurking outside my house. It makes me feel really unsafe, he’s a big guy and always seemed lovely, but if he can behave like this who knows what he is capable of. I’m scared and I don’t know what to do”.

Feels different, right? Yes, things are changing- they still aren’t where they need to be as people think it’s ok to harass their ex, and then others make excuses for them.

This does meet the legal threshold for stalking - a course of conduct, which I was told by the police when it happened to me means at least 3 contacts. It’s actually still hard to secure a conviction for stalking, but harassment is a lower bar as people now recognise how damaging it is to the recipient and how easily it can escalate. Let’s hope he’s learnt his lesson.

But he declined the offer of legal advice, wanted it “over with”. This to me suggests he isn’t very good at considering the consequences of his actions…which is why he’s had a police caution for his actions.

The comparison you’re making is so uncomparable!

A young black woman shoplifting isn't a known risk indicator for domestic homicide.

I am really concerned about your analysis of risk in this situation given you work with children. I trust this has all been reported to the LADO?

Sorry but couldn't have someone like that working for me or with children....of course it will show up on an Ecbc and he won't get work with kids due to the nature of it.he obviously needs help

This isn't necessarily true. Can you imagine if false allegations showed up on DBS checks?

Ex police officer here.
Some thoughts:

1. The rules are clear. If police offer someone a caution, they have to have enough evidence and public interest to take the case to court if the suspect refuses. Sadly, that's not always been honoured by all police officers in the past, but those are the rules.

1. Simple cautions (simple admission of guilt) are being phased out and a lot of forces don't use them now. Instead, conditional cautions (admission of guilt plus agreement to abide by certain conditions) are being used more. The idea is that they can provide ongoing consequences. A breach of those conditions results in straight back to court (hence again the need to have enough evidence for a court case). As part of these changes, forces have a range of out of court options for offending where the suspect admits the offence. Often, a local resolution (often called a community resolution) is offered for first offences at summary level (I.e. less serious and suitable for trial at a magistrates court, as is the case with a S2 stalking and harassment such as this). These are locally recorded and don't appear on a standard DBS but may on an enhanced DBS. This would likely not have been considered in this case because of the domestic element.

1. If the suspect admitted the offence, under home office rules, the police would find it very difficult to close the crime without taking some action (there are only a finite number of reasons available to close crimes). Given the strategic importance currently placed on VAWG, you'd be hard pushed to justify 'not in the public interest'. I'm not surprised a domestic-related stalking with evidence and an admission received a caution. If anything, he's been lucky! Some supervisors would have sent it straight to court with an anticipated guilty plea! Probably only his remorse and a lack of offending history saved him that.

1. There's a long way to go but we are finally trying to address the ongoing issues of VAWG in this country. 2 women a week are killed, mostly by current or former partners who others regularly make comments about such as "he seemed like such a nice guy!" How are the police expected to be able to differentiate between those having a difficult time adjusting to a relationship loss who pose no harm and those who have murderous intent when both are sending 57 messages over a 2-week period? Domestic homicide reviews consistently show that victims experienced a pattern of either controlling and coercive behaviour or stalking and harassment in the build up to their murders. If we accept that most people start offending at a low level and escalate, and that few people start with a serious offence like murder, tackling 'low level' stalking and harassment is absolutely the right place to begin to reduce VAWG. When we reach a point in society where sending 57 unwanted messages over 2 weeks is universally considered unacceptable, we'll see fewer deaths. This particular case may have resulted in an otherwise harmless man being penalised (although the fact that his ex found it necessary to contact the police makes me question that. He may not have intended physical harm but clearly didn't care about causing stress). However, he's collateral damage in setting the standard higher for male behaviour towards women. Fair? Maybe not. But the collateral damage up to now has been women's lives. I know which I'd prefer. I'd certainly see it as in the public interest.

1. All of this was avoidable. A few messages would not have resulted in a caution. 57 over 2 weeks is a lot when someone has made it clear they don't want contact. One or two "I'm sorry and can we please talk about this. You know where I am if you change your mind" would have said the same thing without harassment, been considered reasonable by everyone and not have resulted in a police caution.

Well very likely as he admitted it!!

Excellent post 👏

I hope this answers all your questions OP and makes you reconsider your highly flawed position. There really isn't much more to say.

@Resilience thank you for your post, that’s really good context to understand the situation from a police perspective. Including the reputation/policy/political influences that play a role in crimes that are connected to VAWG. The approach of dealing with the harassment and stalking before it escalates makes sense, it reminds me of the “zero tolerance” approach that was used a while back.

This was all over within 2 weeks of the break up.

It was all over because she reported him to his employer and the police.

Not because he saw sense and stopped harassing her. Simply because he was in trouble.

Never talk to the police without a lawyer. Police will threaten prosecution to get a caution. The outcome feels right in this case, he was stalking his ex and should have left her alone. But a lawyer would have been able to advise him if accepting a caution was in his vest interests. It might well have been, people often turn up at magistrates Court and after seeing a lawyer plead guilty. Pleading guilty early is often the best option, but it really depends on the circumstances

@Resilience an excellent summary, and you are quite right in saying that a paradigm shift in attitudes to men's behaviour cannot be brought about without causing some pain to some men.

8 get what you are saying and it is possible that you are right but it's hard to say.

It is worth considering that his ex-gf may have disclosed behaviour that took place during the relationship that raised red flags for the Police with regards to this man's potential for causing harm. This could have prompted them to issue a caution over simple words of advice.

Perhaps she mentioned the fact that he love bombed her when they first met/makes her feel she can't go anywhere without him/the time he tortured a cat/that he won't let her call her mum anymore/punched a wall last time argued/told he would kill himself if she left him....

This sort of behaviour may not be immediately apparent to the male's friends or employer. It is well known that abusive men are often well liked and respected in other areas of life. The thing is that you will never know if this is the case, even of you think you know him well.

Haven’t read the whole thread but in my experience if he hadn’t had accepted the caution then it would have gone to CPS for a charging decision. If they had the messages from his number etc… then they would have charged him - probably with a slightly lesser offence of ‘harassment without the fear of violence’ as opposed to stalking.
Generally in relation to anything domestic words of advice are not sufficient any longer. Strong robust action is taken at all times (at least in my force) and rightly so.
I understand we have all sent some angry messages in the past but sitting outside of her home when doing so is massively intimidating. People have the right to end relationships and as an adult he should deal with this in an appropriate way. Not tried to intimidate her into changing her mind. Hopefully it’s a lesson to him and he will respect a woman’s decision in the future.
Hope this answers your question 😊

I don't think any lawyer would recommend anyone takes a caution. For anything.

Police use them to get a guilty plea and convict someone of a crime when there's little chance or no chance that they'd be convicted of that crime in a trial.

That said, hopefully your friend has learned to listen to women a little better in future

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?

What the police were warning is that he has committed a criminal offence and the victim was prepared to press charges. They already have the evidence.

The CPS ( and the Court) would not need to consider his "risk to the general public"; only the danger and threat to one person. The target he is obsessed with.

Perhaps you've not looked up the definition of stalking? It appears from this that his behaviour ticks all the boxes.

www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/sh/stalking-harassment/what-is-stalking-harassment/

You do realise that the 'offender' has to have admitted that they committed the offence before a caution is considered? A guilty plea guarantees a conviction if the case goes to trial