The recent case highlights a problem that is mostly faced by women and which has accelerated online amidst the pandemic.

The following article stemming from the unpleasant case of a man stalking a tennis player raises important questions about privacy, an issue that should be relevant for advisors for obvious reasons, given that privacy is something that advisors are called upon to protect.

The article comes from Athalie Matthews, a senior associate at English law firm Farrer & Co. The editors are pleased to share these views and invite replies. The usual editorial disclaimers apply. Email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com

The recent conviction of a 35-year-old man for stalking tennis star Emma Raducanu highlighted the vulnerability of women who suddenly find themselves in the public eye – whether by reason of talent, beauty, wealth or (in Emma’s case) all three. 

The pandemic has sadly brought a surge in stalking, especially online, with record numbers reported to police during lockdown and cyber-stalking crimes more than quadrupling over the last two years. Some 80 per cent of victims are female.

At the same time, online abuse against women, ranging from politicians to C-suite executives, is also on the rise, with about 10 to 20 per cent of people in the UK being targeted by abusive content online.

Common misconceptions include that because the conduct is happening online it is not as serious in legal terms as if it were happening “in real life” and that being high-profile means having to put up with it. In reality, neither applies. High-profile individuals who find themselves targeted by harassment, stalking and/or online abuse have a number of options for trying to stop such behaviour and protecting themselves from the psychological – and other kinds of – fallout. 

Legal firepower
One option is to “go legal,” either by reporting the matter to the police, which could result in a criminal investigation and prosecution, or instructing a civil lawyer privately to try to get problematic content removed, seek to establish who is behind it and send the perpetrator a formal letter warning that legal action will ensue if they don’t stop. In some cases, it is both possible and appropriate to bring a private prosecution. 

Sending offensive messages via social media, WhatsApp or email, or setting up websites hosting abusive content, can constitute harassment or stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Harassment occurs when a perpetrator pursues a ‘course of conduct’ (meaning conduct on two or more occasions) which a reasonable person would think amounts to harassment, which includes alarming the target or causing them distress. Given that the offence is so widely defined, it can cover any number of situations and can be prosecuted in either the criminal or civil courts, depending on its severity and how the target chooses to pursue it. 

The same applies to the offence of stalking, which involves a pattern of fixated and obsessive behaviour that is unwanted. Behaviours that can count as stalking include contacting or attempting to contact someone, publishing material about them, monitoring their emails and watching them or spying on them. 

There are also other criminal offences that can be committed by sending offensive or threatening electronic communications, included under the Communications Act 2003, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Public Order Act 1986.

Unwanted publicity 
Whilst reporting the matter to the police is therefore certainly one option, it is not necessarily the most suitable for high-profile people or HNW individuals. Philip Grindell, a former Metropolitan Police officer known as ‘the online bodyguard’ for his work on protecting high-profile people from harmful online behaviour, explains: “Going to the police can lead to a loss of control, whether because the information could get leaked or because it could end in a public trial, and many high-profile people don’t want that publicity.”

Furthermore, he points out that the process of liaising with the police can itself be traumatic and result in the target feeling like a victim. There are a range of reasons for this, including a tendency for the police to allocate this kind of matter to a junior officer with insufficient training, resulting in a failure to treat the situation appropriately seriously, a failure to investigate or a misplaced initial focus on asking whether the person targeted would support a prosecution and provide a statement. “This is completely the wrong way round,” explains Philip, given that once the offence has been committed and, once reported, it is the police’s job to investigate and decide whether there are grounds for a prosecution.

So, what are the alternatives?

Depending on who the perpetrator is and whether you have any way of contacting them (which may not be the case, particularly with anonymous online posts), instructing a lawyer to write to the perpetrator might make them stop. A legal ‘warning off’ letter will require the conduct to cease and make clear that it is unlawful and could result in the perpetrator being prosecuted or pursued through the civil courts. 

However, depending on the character and mental state of the perpetrator, a legal letter might cause their behaviour to escalate or give them a sense of power and therefore might not be advisable. There is always a critical judgment to be made on the likely reaction of the offender. 

Situations where the offender is being formally served with legal documents, such as an anti-harassment injunction or Stalking Protection Order, also require very careful handling, as it can typically be at this point that risk to the person being harassed is increased. To ensure that they remain safe, it is crucial that they are notified well in advance about any legal or police interventions. This will allow necessary security, welfare or support measures to be put in place before the perpetrator becomes aware of the action being taken against them.