Sadly I have to disagree with you there Felix. The SPO's (which are relatively new) and equivalent civil orders, whilst civil, do appear to come in tandem with charges/convictions. Usually because the criminal justice system doesn't always have the power to penalise and/or prevent further offending and the SPO/DVPO tend to have stricter conditions.
So for a stalking, which often ends up charged down to harassment, we may get a slap on the wrist and a suspended sentence but an SPO on the back would strengthen the protection afforded to the complainant/victim.
I do agree they can be applied for prior to charges/convictions but I've seen orders tagged onto convictions as frequently if not more. A I think SPO's though remain to be seen how they will best be utilised but I know there's a place for them. Clearly not in this case as decided by the courts/prosecutors in the end but definitely for those victims that are being hounded, stalked and ultimately at high risk of serious harm/death. With stalking as one of the main factors present in femicide, they have potential to be of real value in protection with stronger powers attached and less requirement for victim support which is not always easy to get.
The only civil orders of this kind of nature that I routinely see being approved completely aside from any criminal
Investigation are non mols, prohibited steps and occ orders. All orders that police have no dealings with. Even Restraining Orders come on the back of (or sometimes in place of) convictions