The Problematic Development of the Stalking Protection Order

Rory Kelly
{"title":"The Problematic Development of the Stalking Protection Order","authors":"Rory Kelly","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2019, Parliament enacted the Stalking Protection Act. The Act introduces the \nstalking protection order; a civil measure the breach of which is an offence. The role of courts \nin assessing whether similar behaviour orders are penalties has attracted significant scholarly \nattention. In this article, I instead examine the roles of Government and Parliament in \ndeveloping the stalking protection order. My central contention is that the Home Office \nundertook a problematic consultation and the issues to which it gave rise were not addressed \nin later parliamentary debates. The result was the enactment of a coercive measure of unclear \npurpose and questionable efficacy. Assessing the roles of the executive and legislature in \ndeveloping the SPO also allows for fresh insight into wider discussions of behaviour orders. \nSpecifically, I question the language of ‘prevention’ that is ever-present in such discussions \nand describe an important development for debates on whether behaviour orders are penalties.","PeriodicalId":142986,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","volume":"148 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12508","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In 2019, Parliament enacted the Stalking Protection Act. The Act introduces the stalking protection order; a civil measure the breach of which is an offence. The role of courts in assessing whether similar behaviour orders are penalties has attracted significant scholarly attention. In this article, I instead examine the roles of Government and Parliament in developing the stalking protection order. My central contention is that the Home Office undertook a problematic consultation and the issues to which it gave rise were not addressed in later parliamentary debates. The result was the enactment of a coercive measure of unclear purpose and questionable efficacy. Assessing the roles of the executive and legislature in developing the SPO also allows for fresh insight into wider discussions of behaviour orders. Specifically, I question the language of ‘prevention’ that is ever-present in such discussions and describe an important development for debates on whether behaviour orders are penalties.
跟踪保护令的问题发展
2019年,议会颁布了《跟踪保护法》。该法引入了跟踪保护令;一种民事措施,违反该措施即构成犯罪。法院在评估类似行为命令是否为惩罚方面的作用引起了学术界的极大关注。在本文中,我转而研究政府和议会在制定跟踪保护令中的作用。我的主要论点是,内政部进行了一次有问题的磋商,而它引发的问题在后来的议会辩论中没有得到解决。其结果是制定了一项目的不明确、效力可疑的强制性措施。评估行政机关和立法机关在制定《行为守则》方面的角色,也有助于对有关行为守则的更广泛讨论有新的见解。具体而言,我质疑在此类讨论中始终存在的“预防”语言,并描述了关于行为命令是否为惩罚的辩论的重要发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信