{"title":"跟踪保护令的问题发展","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":"{\"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}","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}
The Problematic Development of the Stalking Protection Order
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.