Stalking is a sequence of unwanted contact, monitoring, surveillance, and sabotage. This research looks specifically at intimate partner stalking (IPS), perpetrated against partners or ex-partners. Common stalking actions can include showing up, driving past, confrontation, calling repeatedly or texting/direct messaging incessantly, posting on social media, delivering gifts or tokens, using spyware or obtaining access to private information and communication, making threats, contacting people proximal to the victim, and sabotaging the victim’s freedom and prospects. Many of these individual actions appear innocuous when taken alone, but this intrusion becomes distressing or fear-inducing when cumulative. Intimate partner stalking is associated with an elevated risk of intimate partner homicide, and frequently escalates to physical and sexual violence. Some stalking behaviours are prohibited under various laws such as the Harassment Act 1997 and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, but court action for stalking crimes is infrequent.

Intimate partner stalking is a highly gendered form of interpersonal violence that capitalises on a pre-existing power differential within a relationship. It is predominately perpetrated by men and against women but can be perpetrated in other relationships. Women’s Refuge statistics show that of clients who are asked and answer assessment questions about stalking, 74.6 percent are stalked by their intimate partner pre-separation, and 64.7 percent are stalked post-separation. Anecdotally, Women’s Refuge advocates have raised concerns about the invisibility of stalking behaviours within judicial interagency responses to victims of intimate partner violence, and about the rise of digitally-facilitated stalking and their capacity to support digital safety. The authors used a qualitative-dominant, mixed-methods design comprising of a survey and semi-structured interviews. 712 respondents who had been subjected to intimate partner stalking answered the survey, and the authors interviewed 18 of these. The authors also interviewed four advocates. (From the Executive summary). Record #6488