The Law Reform Commission

of Hong Kong

Report

Stalking

This report can be found on the Internet at: <http://www.info.gov.hk/hkreform>

October 2000

The Law Reform Commission was established by His Excellency the Governor in Council in January 1980. The Commission considers such reforms of the laws of Hong Kong as may be referred to it by the Secretary for Justice or the Chief Justice.

The members of the Commission as at September 2000 were:

The Hon Ms Elsie Leung Oi-Sie, JP,

Secretary for Justice (Chairman)

The Hon Mr Justice Andrew Li, Chief Justice

Mr Tony Yen, SBS, JP, Law Draftsman

Mr Payson Cha, JP

Mr Victor Chu Lap-lik

Mr Alan Hoo, SC

Mr Kwong Chi Kin

Dr Lawrence Lai, JP

The Hon Mrs Sophie Leung, SBS, JP

Professor Felice Lieh Mak, JP

Mr David Smith

Professor Raymond Wacks

The Secretary of the Commission is Mr Stuart M I Stoker and its offices are at:

20/F Harcourt House

39 Gloucester Road

Wanchai

Hong Kong

Telephone: 2528 0472

Fax: 2865 2902

E-mail: hklrc@hkreform.gcn.gov.hk

Website: http://www.info.gov.hk/hkreform

The Law Reform Commission

of Hong Kong

Report

Stalking

____________________________________

CONTENTS

Preface

__________

1. On 11 October 1989, under powers granted by the Governor-in-Council on 15 January 1980, the Attorney General and the Chief Justice referred to the Law Reform Commission for consideration the subject of “privacy”. The Commission’s terms of reference are as follows:

“To examine existing Hong Kong laws affecting privacy and to report on whether legislative or other measures are required to provide protection against, and to provide remedies in respect of, undue interference with the privacy of the individual with particular reference to the following matters:

(a) the acquisition, collection, recording and storage of information and opinions pertaining to individuals by any persons or bodies, including Government departments, public bodies, persons or corporations;

(b) the disclosure or communication of the information or opinions referred to in paragraph (a) to any person or body including any Government department, public body, person or corporation in or out of Hong Kong;

(c) intrusion (by electronic or other means) into private premises; and

(d) the interception of communications, whether oral or recorded;

but excluding inquiries on matters falling within the Terms of Reference of the Law Reform Commission on either Arrest or Breach of Confidence.”

2. The Law Reform Commission appointed a sub-committee to examine the current state of law and to make recommendations. The members of the sub-committee are:

Prof Raymond Wacks Professor of Law and Legal Theory,

(Chairman) The University of Hong Kong

Dr John Bacon-Shone Director, Social Sciences Research Centre,

The University of Hong Kong

Mr Don Brech Principal Consultant,

Records Management International Limited

(Former Director, Government Records Service)

Mrs Patricia Chu, BBS, JP Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Services),

Social Welfare Department

Mr A F M Conway Chairman,

Great River Corporation Limited

Mr Edwin Lau Assistant General Manager,

Head of Strategic Implementation Asia Pacific, HSBC

Mr Robin McLeish Barrister-at-law

(from February 2000) (Former Deputy Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data)

The Hon Mr Justice Non-Permanent Judge, Court of Final Appeal

Mortimer, GBS (Former Vice-President, Court of Appeal)

(Chairman of sub-committee till August 1999)

Mr James O’Neil Deputy Solicitor General (Constitutional),

Department of Justice

Mr Peter So Lai-yin Former General Manager,

Hong Kong Note Printing Limited

Mr Wong Kwok-wah Chinese Language Editor,

Asia 2000 Limited

The secretary to the sub-committee is Mr Godfrey K F Kan, Senior Government Counsel.

3. Matters arising from items (a) and (b) of the terms of reference were addressed in the Law Reform Commission report on Reform of the Law Relating to the Protection of Personal Data published in August 1994. The Commission report on the Interception of Communications was published in December 1996.

4. The Privacy sub-committee published a consultation paper on Stalking in May 1998. The consultation period expired in September 1998. More than 50 submissions were received. The respondents fall into the following categories: the legal profession, government departments, public bodies, welfare organisations, women’s groups, journalists’ associations, media organisations, financial institutions and private individuals. The list of respondents is at the Annex. We are grateful to all those who have commented on the consultation paper.

5. We examine in Chapter 1 why stalking is a menace to society. Chapter 2 then gives an overview of the responses to the Consultation Paper published by the sub-committee. An account of the incidence of stalking in Hong Kong is given in Chapter 3. The extent to which existing law can afford protection to victims of stalking is examined in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 describes the legislative measures taken by other common law jurisdictions to tackle the problem of stalking. Chapters 6 to 9 outline the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission.

Chapter 1

The menace of stalking

_____________________________

What is stalking?¹

1.1 Stalking, like shoplifting and vandalism, is a description rather than a legal concept.² Stalking is not a new phenomenon³ but it is only recently that such behaviour has been labelled a separate and distinct class of anti-social behaviour. Celia Wells describes “stalking” as “the pursuit by one person of what appears to be a campaign of harassment or molestation of another, usually with an undertone of sexual attraction or infatuation.”⁴ Similarly, Tim Lawson-Cruttenden defines stalking as “behaviour which subjects another to a course of persistent conduct, whether active or passive, which taken together over a period of time amounts to harassment or pestering.”⁵

1.2 Behaviour which amounts to harassment or molestation includes “persistent pestering and intimidation through shouting, denigration, threats or argument, nuisance telephone calls, damaging property, following the [victim] about and repeatedly calling at her home or place of work.”⁶ In its report on domestic violence, the English Law Commission stated that:

“The degree of severity of such behaviour depends less upon its intrinsic nature than upon it being part of a pattern and upon its effect on the victim. Acts of molestation often follow upon previous behaviour which has been violent or otherwise offensive. Calling at the applicant’s house on one occasion may not be objectionable. Calling frequently and unexpectedly at unsocial hours when the victim is known to be afraid certainly is. Such forms of abuse may in some circumstances be just as harmful, vicious and distressing as physical injuries.”⁷

1.3 “Harass” and “molest” have the following meanings in The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:

“harass 1. Trouble by repeated attacks. Now freq., subject to constant molesting or persecution. 2. Lay waste, devastate. 3. Tire out, exhaust. ...”

“molest 1. Cause trouble to; vex, annoy, inconvenience. b. Of disease: afflict, affect. 2. Interfere or meddle with (a person) injuriously or with hostile intent. Now esp. attack or abuse sexually. b. Tamper with (a thing).”

“molestation 1. The action of molesting someone or ... something; the condition of being molested; intentional annoyance, hostile interference; (esp. sexual) assault. Formerly also, vexation, distress. ...”

1.4 Richard Lingg suggests that “harass” means “a pattern of conduct, purposely committed, comprising two or more acts evidencing a continuity of purpose, directed at a specific person, which reasonably causes substantial emotional distress to the person.”⁸ The Penal Code of California defines “harasses” as “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serve no legitimate purpose.”⁹ Such definitions accord with the ordinary meaning of the word “harassment”. It will be seen that the concept of “harassment” is an adequate description of both the activities engaged in by stalkers and the impact which such behaviour would have on victims of stalking.

Methods employed by stalkers¹⁰

1.5 Stalking involves “a series of discrete, individual acts, each one building upon the next”.¹¹ It is not a single occurrence but involves a course of conduct that extends over a period of time. A typical stalker would engage in a series of acts that, viewed collectively, present a pattern of behaviour that annoys or alarms the target. Occasionally, a stalker may become more threatening and violent as time passes. The stalking activity may escalate from what may initially be annoying, alarming but lawful behaviour to the level of dangerous, violent and potentially fatal acts. Stalking may therefore be a precursor to crimes such as assault, wounding, criminal intimidation, sexual offences and even murder.

1.6 The National Victim Center in the US describes the following behavioural pattern as typical of a stalker:

“The stalker may attempt to woo their victim into a relationship by sending flowers, candy and love letters, in an attempt to ‘prove their love.’ However, when the victim spurns their unwelcome advances, the stalker often turns to intimidation. Such attempts at intimidation often begin in the form of an unjustified, jealous and inappropriate intrusion into the victim’s life. Often these contacts become more numerous and intrusive over time, until such collective conduct becomes a persistent pattern of harassment. Many times, harassing behavior escalates to threatening behavior. ... Stalkers, unable to establish or re-establish a relationship of power and control over their victims, turn to violence as a means of reasserting their domination over the victim. In some cases, offenders are even willing to kill their victims and themselves in a last, desperate attempt to assert their domination over the victim.”¹²

1.7 Victims of stalking are commonly subjected to multiple forms of harassment. Their stalkers seek to make contacts with them by various means. Many stalkers therefore make excessive telephone calls to their victims. These unsolicited calls may be made at inconvenient times, especially in the early morning hours or at the workplace. In some instances, the stalker hangs up immediately or remains silent on the phone. If a stalker is obsessed with the victim, declarations of love, obscenities or threats may be made over the phone. Where an answering machine is used, it may be crammed with the stalker’s declarations of love or abusive messages.

1.8 If the victim is accessible by e-mail, the stalker may repeatedly send unwanted electronic messages to him or her. The volume of such messages can be so high that the victim’s use of his or her computer for communication is disrupted. Stalkers who know that their victims have a facsimile machine at their workplace may send facsimile transmissions containing abusive or insulting remarks. The victims would be embarrassed if their colleagues picked up the facsimiles for them. Some stalkers use post cards instead so that the victims’ family members can read the messages written on the back.

1.9 Direct approaches to a victim at his or her home, school or workplace are common. These approaches may be accompanied with verbal abuse containing scurrilous remarks. The victims would be embarrassed and insulted if these remarks were made in the presence of their acquaintances or colleagues. Where the victim refuses the stalker entry to the former’s property, the latter might force his way into the property and refuse to leave.

1.10 Another means employed by stalkers is to follow the victim in the street or keep him or her under surveillance. Surveillance takes a number of forms. The stalker may watch or spy on the victim, but he may simply loiter or lie in wait outside the victim’s home, school, or place of work or recreation regularly. In some instances, the stalker conveyed his knowledge of the details of the victim’s movement so as to let the victim know that he or she is being watched.

1.11 In order to please or harass the victim, the stalker may persistently send, or leave at the doorstep, unwanted gifts or bizarre articles such as pubic hair, used condoms and used sanitary napkins. In some instances, the stalker may deliver a dead or mutilated pet or animal, a doll without a head, or other sinister objects to the victim’s home or workplace.

1.12 It is not infrequent that a stalker uses threats to force his victim to succumb to his demands. A stalker may threaten suicide, or go so far as to attempt suicide in order to achieve his object. In one case, the stalker told his ex-partner that he had AIDS but had “forgotten” to inform her previously. It was a false claim but the victim was distressed as a result.

1.13 Some stalkers repeatedly threaten to harm the victims or their new partners, children or pets. Those showing a violent disposition may even sexually or physically assault their victims. Damage to property is also common for these stalkers. They may slash tyres, daub paint, scratch paintwork or vandalise property. This behaviour may be directed both at the victim and third parties.

1.14 The above behaviour may be associated with other forms of harassment such as disclosing the intimate facts about the victim to his or her friends or colleagues, making false accusations, intercepting the victim’s mail, ordering goods on behalf of the victim without the latter’s consent, and bringing spurious legal actions.

1.15 Stalkers may employ unlawful means to harass their victim. For example, a stalker may make telephone calls that are of an obscene or menacing character, threaten his victim with injury to his person or property, or inflict violence on him or his family members. Such conduct can be restrained and penalised by existing criminal law. However, stalkers may seek to stay within the bounds of criminal law in order to avoid arrest and prosecution. They may therefore engage in behaviour which is apparently harmless and entirely lawful when viewed in isolation. But seemingly innocuous behaviour, such as sending gifts, following someone down the street, or watching or besetting the access to premises, can be threatening and distressing if done persistently and against the will of the victim.¹³ Some stalkers behave in ways that induce fear even though they do not always make threats against their victims.

1.16 The same kind of stalking behaviour may be motivated by an extreme dislike of the victim or by an intense affection for the victim. But it is common that the pursuit begins with non-threatening conduct. For example, a former spouse or rejected suitor may make a telephone call, send a gift, or lie in wait outside the residence or place of work of his victim in an attempt to make amends. Although such conduct may cause the victim no more than mere annoyance or irritation, it can escalate into relentless and unwanted contact. Stalkers who use the victim’s fear to achieve their object might resort to behaviour which can be threatening, dangerous or even fatal when their victim refuses to have any contact with them.

1.17 The difficulty of predicting what and when a stalker might do to his victim poses a problem in developing an effective response to the menace of stalking:

“Some stalkers may never escalate past the first stage. Others jump from the first stage to the last stage with little warning. Still others regress to previous stages before advancing to the next. It is not uncommon to see stalkers intersperse episodes of threats and violence with flowers and love letters. ... A few stalkers will progress to later stages in only a few weeks or even days. In other cases, stalkers who have engaged in some of the most serious stalking behaviors may go months or even years without attempting a subsequent contact.”¹⁴

1.18 Since various psychobiologic, environmental, intrapsychic, and psychiatric factors contribute to the development of a violent individual, mental health professionals have not been able to predict, with a high degree of certainty, which stalkers will commit violence and which will not.¹⁵ Stalking behaviour should therefore be restrained at an early stage so as to prevent it from escalating into violence.

Profile of stalkers¹⁶

1.19 Stalking is gender neutral behaviour, with both male and female perpetrators and victims. However, women are the primary victims and men are the primary perpetrators. In the US, 75-80% of all stalking cases involve men stalking women.¹⁷ The underlying cause of stalking varies depending on the context in which it arises. It is, however, worth bearing in mind that not all stalkers are mentally ill. Stalkers may or may not have mental problems.

1.20 It has been said that stalkers range from cold-blooded killers to lovesick teens, exhibiting a variety of psychological syndromes such as paranoia, erotomania, schizophrenia and manic depression.¹⁸ While some have a small degree of mental and emotional illness, others are suffering from a serious psychological syndrome or mental breakdown. They come from all walks of life and socio-economic backgrounds. A stalker can be an ex-lover, ex-spouse, rejected suitor, colleague, ex-employee, neighbour, gang member, disgruntled defendant or aggrieved customer of his or her victim. Even lawyers and judges can be stalkers.¹⁹

1.21 Sometimes, the victim has no idea who his or her stalker is. This would be the case if the stalker does not reveal his identity or he is a complete stranger. The stalker may make repeated calls to the victim’s home or office and tell her how beautiful she is, or leave a message saying “I adore you and I’m watching you.” In these cases, the victim does not even know whether she is being followed or spied upon because she does not know what he looks like.

1.22 The motivation of a stalker ranges from obsession, jealousy, and desires for contact and control. According to a comprehensive survey on stalking conducted in the US in 1997, the typical female victim thought she had been stalked because the stalker wanted to control her, scare her, or keep her in a relationship. Male victims cited intimidation or control as possible motivations of stalkers.²⁰

1.23 Zona and others point out that the more difficult type of stalker may exhibit a personality disorder (such as obsessive-compulsive behaviour) that could interfere with the stalker’s ability to maintain a normal routine, such as holding a steady job or maintaining a stable relationship. These stalkers spend much time following their targets and writing notes and letters to them.²¹ Tom Newman, a licensed marriage and family therapist, observes that stalkers experience low self-esteem, are usually jealous of their partner, lack constructive expression of feelings, have a negative outlook on life, are insecure and have a perceived lack of control in their own lives.²²

1.24 A review of the literature on stalking reveals that there are at least five different categories of stalkers, namely, delusional erotomanics, borderline erotomanics, ”former intimate” stalkers, sociopathic stalkers, and stalkers with false victimisation syndromes.

1.25 Delusional erotomanics - The American Psychiatric Association describes “erotomania” as a delusional disorder in which the individual truly believes that he is loved by another who may not even know of his existence. The erotomanic typically fantasizes the existence of an idyllic romantic love with someone who is of a higher social status or in a position of authority relative to him. It is common that an erotomanic seeks to establish an intimate relationship with his object of fantasy.²³ The erotomanic believes that his object will return the affection if given the chance - despite the absence of any actual relationship or emotional reciprocity.²⁴ As a consequence, the stalker may not intend to cause fear; he may simply intend to establish a relationship with the victim.

1.26 Borderline erotomanics - “Borderline erotomanics” (or “love obsessionals”) are individuals who have developed intense emotional feelings towards other individuals who they know do not reciprocate their feelings, as opposed to delusional erotomanics who do believe their feelings are reciprocated. They usually have some history of emotional engagement with the object of fantasy and are profoundly vulnerable to the victim’s trivial expressions of warmth and openness.²⁵ Borderline erotomanics also tend to vacillate between feelings of love and hate towards their victims. They exhibit a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationship in which the individual alternately overidealises and devalues another.²⁶ They may express significant narcissistic or abandonment rage when their victims do not return their affection.

1.27 Former intimate stalkers - About 70 to 80% of stalking cases involve “former intimate” stalkers (or “simple obsessionals”). Unlike erotomanics and borderline erotomanics, former intimate stalkers have had some personal or romantic relationship with the victim. They engage in stalking behaviour when the relationship breaks down or when they feel mistreated by the victim. They stalk their victim in an attempt to resurrect the broken relationship or to seek revenge.²⁷

1.28 Former intimate stalkers are extremely insecure about themselves and suffer from low self-esteem.²⁸ They are often emotionally dependent on their partner and may treat them as personal possessions. Many are jealous of real or imagined infidelities. As a consequence, they demonstrate a strong urge to control their former partners. They may target the current lover or spouse of their victim in an attempt to remove what they perceive to be the obstacle to reunion, or may even seek to apply force to exert control over their victim. In extreme cases, the stalker is so dependent on the victim that he would rather kill the victim than live without him or her. The Los Angeles Police Department therefore characterized these stalkers as individuals who “refuse to let go” after a sexual or emotional relationship ends. But a more accurate description might be that they “refuse to be rejected”.²⁹ Since approximately 30% of former intimate stalkers who make threats follow through with them and end up in what are commonly called domestic violence cases, this category of stalkers poses the greatest potential threat of violence to the victim.³⁰

1.29 Sociopathic stalkers - Stalking behaviour is a common characteristic of serial murderers and serial rapists. Sociopathic stalkers are distinguished by the fact that they do not seek to initiate or maintain an interpersonal relationship with their victim. They first formulate the characteristics of the “ideal victim” and then seek out individuals who fit the criteria.³¹ They stalk one victim after another in a serial fashion. Sociopathic stalkers were usually abused or rejected during their childhood. When they find themselves unable to control their environment and experience rejection again as an adult, they displace their anger onto their victims.³²

1.30 Persons with false victimisation syndromes³³ - This kind of stalker greatly admires his victim and may go to great lengths to imitate his or her habits and life style. He has low self-esteem and feels inferior to the individual who is the object of his attentions. When the stalker feels that he does not measure up to this individual and believes that he is wronged or rejected by him or her, he takes revenge by harassment. When confronted with the facts, he would try to rationalize his behaviour by claiming that he is the victim and that it is the individual targeted by him who is at fault. Such stalkers are usually of the same sex as their victims.

Other categories of stalkers

1.31 Disgruntled clients of private organisations or public bodies - Some private organisations and public bodies have extensive contacts with members of the public. On occasions, their clients take exception to their policies or decisions, or are dissatisfied with the type or level of service delivered by them. These clients may choose to express their anger or dissatisfaction by stalking or harassment. The usual tactics employed by these disgruntled clients include the following:

(a) repeated telephone or personal calls to the office, complaining and insisting that his demands be met, or questioning the organisation’s policy or decision with abusive, insulting and humiliating remarks;

(b) lodging repeated oral and written complaints on frivolous or vexatious matters which are without substance or even malicious;

(c) following the responsible officer or his staff;

(d) visiting the home of the officer after finding out his address by following him home; and

(e) intercepting or threatening to intercept the officer or his staff near their place of work or on the street.

These contacts may develop into heated arguments and escalate into violence. But unless the client becomes violent or has done something unlawful, the officer concerned has to put up with such persistent harassment. To express their dissatisfaction or outrage, disgruntled clients may harass other members of the staff within the same organisation even though the latter are not responsible for the particular policy or decision.

1.32 These stalkers are vengeful over some real or imagined grievance. Some of them may be psychopaths who feel no remorse for their actions. Some are delusional, often paranoid, who believe that it is they who are the victims. They all stalk to “get even”.³⁴

1.33 Clients of counselling staff³⁵ - A survey of 178 staff members at counselling centres in the US revealed that 6% of the respondents have been stalked by a current or former client at least once.³⁶ Ten per cent reported that they had supervised an intern or practicum student who had been the victim of a client’s stalking. An important finding is the potential risk that is placed on family members of counselling centre professionals. Nearly 8% of the sample reported a family member or someone close to them had been stalked or harassed by a current or former client. “Stalking” was defined in the survey as “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or harassing another person and making a credible threat”. Although the incidence of stalking of counselling staff was not high, the incidence of harassment, defined as a “wilful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose”, by a current or former client was as high as 63%.

1.34 Cyberstalkers - Internet users may be subjected to a campaign of electronic harassment.³⁷ To protect his activities from detection, the cyberstalker can forge an e-mail header so as to create an online digital persona. Online harassment may take the following forms:³⁸

• sending unwanted e-mails which are abusive, threatening or obscene;

• sending hundreds or thousands of junk e-mail messages (“spamming”);

• sending computer viruses;

• impersonating the victim online and sending abusive e-mails or fraudulent spams in the victim’s name;

• subscribing in the name of the victim to a number of mailing lists without the victim’s permission with the result that the latter receives hundreds of unwanted e-mails everyday;

• putting the victim’s name on sex newsgroups inviting persons of the opposite sex to call the victim or come to his or her home; and

• posting bogus advertisements to a Usenet discussion group offering the victim’s services as a prostitute and providing her home address and telephone number which lead to more obscene e-mail messages and telephone calls.

1.35 According to CyberAngels,³⁹ which has established itself as an Internet Safety Organisation since 1995, most cyberstalkers are male and the majority of victims are female. Cyberstalking may also occur with children stalked by adult predators. In some cases, the cyberstalker traces the home address and telephone number of the victim and the online harassment ventures off-line. The typical victim is new online and inexperienced in Internet technology.

1.36 CyberAngels observes that there are four types of online stalking and harassment: sexual harassment, love obsession stalking, hate/revenge vendettas and Power Trips or Ego Trips.⁴⁰ Sexual harassment is the most common form of online stalking. As for love obsession stalking, it can start from an online romance, where one person halts the romance but the other party cannot accept that the relationship has ended. It can also start when one person is serious in developing a deep relationship with another user but the latter is merely playing online. When the truth is revealed, the serious user cannot back off. With regard to hate/revenge vendattas, they are basically the result of something a user has said or done online which has offended another user. The harasser in the last category of online stalking is motivated by a desire to show off his computer skills to himself or his friends. He selects his victim at random. He might have a new attack program and wish to test it on someone, or he is merely trying to impress an online group so as to gain status.

1.37 Members of triad societies - One respondent to our Consultation Paper alleges that he has been followed by members of a triad society because he refused to provide financial assistance to them. He supports making stalking an offence because he and his family members’ private lives, mental health and physical life have been affected and threatened by their behaviour. Although there is inadequate evidence to conclude that stalking by triad societies is pervasive, we cannot discard the possibility that triad members resort to such tactics in order to avoid arrest and prosecution, particularly when they may be recruited by creditors to collect debts.

1.38 Debt collectors - Debt collectors may exert pressure on debtors or their referees, friends, relatives and neighbours by using the following tactics:

• frequent calls at the home of the debtor leaving threatening cards;

• pouring black or red paint on the wall of the debtor’s premises;

• filling the keyhole of the debtor’s main door with gum, tooth-picks or glue;

• sending paper money for the dead by post or by fax to the debtor’s residence or place of employment;

• leaving at the doorstep an urn which is used for holding the ashes of a person who has been cremated;

• publicising the indebtedness of the debtor by putting up notices near his home or place of work;

• demanding payment from the debtor in the presence of his employer, customers or family members;

• sending unsealed debt recovery letters to the debtor’s neighbours or place of employment; and

• sending demand letters by facsimile transmission to the debtor’s place of employment.

1.39 Neighbourhood harassment - The majority of Hong Kong residents live in multi-storey buildings which are closely spaced. Anti-social behaviour of neighbours or gangs may disrupt the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of a neighbourhood. Gangs may gather in the public staircase or playground of housing estates making a nuisance of themselves by taking drugs, drinking alcohol, urinating in staircases, or shouting insults or obscenities at passers-by. If their behaviour persists for a long time, an intimidating atmosphere can be created in the area affecting the private lives of nearby residents. Although the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap 228) may assist in certain circumstances and the Noise Control Ordinance (Cap 400) may be invoked if the noise produced by the gang is a source of annoyance, their behaviour cannot normally be restrained unless they engage in criminal damage or their behaviour becomes violent. An air of lawlessness in the area may prevail if their behaviour is not such as could call for the intervention of the police.

Victims of stalking

1.40 Stalking affects people ranging from ordinary citizens to celebrities. Although stalking cases involving celebrities attract much media attention, the overwhelming majority of victims of stalking are ordinary people who are harassed at their place of work or in a domestic context. Domestic stalking involves former or current lovers, co-habitees and spouses. This category represents the bulk of stalking cases. Other stalking victims include co-workers, debtors, neighbours, celebrities, political figures⁴¹ and strangers. Sometimes, the family members and co-workers of a stalking victim are also stalked in an attempt to exert power and control over the victim.

1.41 Since stalking is not a criminal offence in Hong Kong and there has never been any study of the phenomenon of stalking in Hong Kong, the statistical prevalence of stalking in the territory is unknown. However, some statistics and projections on the prevalence of stalking in England, Canada and the United States are available.

England

1.42 The Police Federation in England estimated that 3,000 people fell victim to stalkers every year and that the overwhelming majority of victims were women.⁴² The National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign in the UK reported that over 7,000 victims of stalking telephoned their helpline between January 1994 and November 1995. They estimated that about 95% of victims were women.⁴³ According to Sheridan and Davies, 12,000 complaints were estimated to have arisen in the first year of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in operation. About 300 of these have resulted in convictions under the Act.⁴⁴

Canada

1.43 The following are the findings of a survey carried out by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. It represents a sample of 130 police departments (43% of the national volume of police cases) for 1994 and 1995:⁴⁵

(a) Out of the 7,462 reports of incidents that were classified as stalking,

• 88% of the accused stalkers were male