Crackdown on stalkers

Breach of such an order could mean up to five years' imprisonment if the offence were taken on indictment and/or an unlimited fine or, on summary conviction, up to six months jail and/or a fine up to #5000.

In addition, the Act introduces a new civil court remedy of seeking a non-harassment order, with a similar penalty for breaching the order, and confers the right to seek damages for anxiety or direct financial loss caused by the harassment.

That might include the cost of a victim having to move her home or change job and location to defeat someone harassing them.

However, reservations been expresssed over the effectiveness of the new legislation, particularly over the cost of raising a civil action. Lesley Irving, of Scottish Women's Aid, said: ''With the increase in sheriff court fees and the changes to civil legal aid, civil legal action would be financially out of reach of very many women. The fact is if you have any income above benefit level the cost of going to court to procure a civil order is prohibitive.''

Scottish Women's Aid was

already aware that large numbers of women were already not proceeding with other forms of protection such as interdict or exclusion orders from the matrimonial home because of the prohibitive cost.

''I cannot see how this will be any different at all. The type of behaviour which has come to be called stalking is incredibly common. This law followed a number of high-profile cases but it is a very common experience for women who have left abusive partners to be harassed, abused and threatened long after the relationship has ended. It is a form of criminal activity which affects thousands of women in Scotland and we remain unconvinced that this new law is the best protection,''she said.

Mr Dewar earlier said that the new law would be effective in curbing the activities of those who intimidated and preyed on others.

''It recognises and builds on the flexibility which we have in Scotland in the form of the common law offence of breach of the peace which already allows prosecution of behaviour likely to cause or which has caused alarm, annoyance or distress,'' he said.

Meanwhile an Ayrshire woman, who had called for changes in the law after her own high-profile stalking ordeal, welcomed the announcement.

Louise Durie, whose tormentor and next-door neighbour Douglas Pickering conducted a lengthy and bizarre campaign against her, said: ''The good thing is that at last this is going to be taken seriously.

''The police told me themselves that their hands were tied with the breach of the peace laws, and this will at least act as a deterrent.''

Pickering, 40, was jailed for nine months at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court in May last year after being found guilty of breach of the peace and admitted two similar charges. He has served his sentence and is again living next door to Ms Durie in Main Road, Waterside.

Ms Durie had been outraged when Sheriff Terence Russell deferred sentence and allowed Pickering to return to live next door to his victim on bail for three months, while reports were prepared.

At the time she said: ''Having gone through the whole court system he's now ended up right back next door to me.''

Three days later Pickering handcuffed himself to a tree in her garden. Police had to free him with a hacksaw. A psychiatric report said the former car salesman and father of one, ''suffered rejection problems and posed a risk.''

Ms Irving stated: ''I take the point that the common law offence of breach of the peace has the advantage of flexibility but up until now we have not seen it being used effectively. What is going to be different now, unless there is a major change in attitude on the part of the procurators fiscal and on the part of the sentencers? ''