It’s Stalking Awareness Week, and a good time to clear up a point that often gets muddled in practice. A stalking order is not the same as a domestic abuse order.
A Non-Molestation Order (NMO) is used where there’s a domestic relationship between the parties, such as a current or former partner or certain family members. It is a family court order designed to stop contact, including all types of abuse, threats and harassment. A Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO) also sits in the domestic abuse space but is broader and more flexible. It can include not just prohibitions but also positive requirements and even electronic monitoring in some cases. But DAPOs are still being rolled out through pilot areas, so they’re not yet the everyday route.
And there are other orders that victim-survivors may require, such as Occupation and Prohibited Steps Orders. But a Stalking Protection Order (SPO) is different again. It’s a stalking-specific order, usually applied for by the police, and it does not depend on there being a domestic relationship. That matters because stalking is not always carried out by a partner or ex-partner.
I have a lifetime NMO, but when I was subjected to stalking a few years later by a stranger, there was no similar legal protection available – my experiences came before SPOs and even before the Protection from Harassment Act in 1997. Yet I can attest to the fear, unpredictability and distress it caused over five long years. If I’d known then what I know now about the pattern and escalation of the behaviour, I’d have been even more terrified.
So where does harassment fit in? The simplest way to explain it is that harassment is the broader category, while stalking is a more specific pattern within it. Stalking often involves fixation, repeated intrusion, monitoring, following, repeated messages, gifts, or other obsessive behaviours that create fear and distress. One of the long-standing problems in practice is that stalking can be minimised or mislabelled as “just harassment,” which can blunt the response and miss the risk.
The overlap comes in cases such as ex-partner stalking. When stalking is being carried out by someone who is personally connected to the victim it may sit within both domestic abuse and stalking. In those cases, a NMO or, as rollout develops, a DAPO may be relevant because of the domestic abuse context. An SPO may also be relevant because the behaviour itself is stalking. Cases are assessed based on circumstances and police involvement. At NCDV we focus on orders relating to domestic abuse, but don’t do stalking orders because they are outside of our usual remit. We do signpost people, of course.
Why does this matter? Because getting the behaviour named properly helps people find the right protective options.
At NCDV we sometimes hear myths perpetuated about orders – that they’re not worth the paper they’re written on, they don’t work and so on. None of the tools we use across the domestic abuse sector are magic wands. I have heard similar things said about risk assessments, Clare’s Law, and perpetrator work. But tools matter.
When I began working in this sector 30 years ago, we had nowhere near the number of tools in the toolbox. We did have protective orders though, and as an intervention they matter as much today as they did back then. My own lifetime order has been of huge comfort to me over the years. Used well, they can help victims feel safer, clearer, and more in control. They can be empowering in themselves, because they draw a formal legal boundary around what must stop. They can also give police a far clearer remit to act when that boundary is crossed.
And while we should always be honest about the gaps, we should be equally careful not to let our own assumptions shape the options we present to people, because that can control someone’s choices. Evidence suggests that most orders are not breached, which is an important reminder that they should be seen as a useful intervention. Not right for every case, but often an important part of safety, confidence, and accountability.
Charlotte Hazell-Caldwell
Head of Training & Development, NCDV