0:04

A Warning. This

0:06

episode contains graphic descriptions of intimate

0:08

partner violence. Please listen

0:10

with care. Welcome

0:16

to Crime Insider's Forensics. For

0:19

those joining us for the first time, my

0:22

name's Katherine Fox. I'm a

0:24

former GP, crime author and screenwriter.

0:28

I'm enthralled by forensics and have spent

0:30

thousands of hours researching for books and

0:32

screenplays. So, I thought,

0:36

why not turn my research into

0:38

a podcast? Every week,

0:41

you'll be joining me in discovering

0:43

how forensic science is helping solve

0:45

high profile crimes in Australia and

0:47

around the world. This

0:50

week, part two of

0:52

my chat with forensic psychologist, Professor

0:54

Troy McEwen. If

0:56

you haven't heard part one, I suggest

0:58

you go back and listen to that

1:01

episode first so you can get context

1:03

into the psychology and motivations of stalkers.

1:06

We'll continue along the same

1:08

vein, this time discussing how

1:10

victims of stalking are systemically

1:12

let down and what can be

1:14

done about it. Fundamentally, I

1:17

think there's a misunderstanding that

1:19

stalking isn't very common and

1:21

it's not very serious and occasionally

1:23

bad things happen, but broadly we

1:25

probably do okay and it's just

1:27

an inaccurate understanding. Twenty-four

1:30

year old Alice Ruggles was stalked

1:33

and murdered by her ex-boyfriend

1:35

in 2016. Alice

1:39

did all the recommended things, reporting

1:41

her stalkers' dangerous behaviour to the

1:44

police on multiple occasions. Unfortunately,

2:01

Alice's story is not

2:03

a one-off. It's

2:05

a typical story illustrating the

2:07

link between coercive behaviour and

2:09

stalking. In this case you

2:11

can really see that continuation

2:13

of coercive control into stalking

2:16

post-relationship. So,

2:19

how do the police handle reports of

2:21

stalking? They're not walking in reporting a theft

2:23

that happened yesterday and it's over. They're

2:26

in the middle of being assaulted. Before

2:30

we begin, I'd like to encourage all

2:33

of our listeners to please visit the

2:35

Alice Ruggles Trust website and social media

2:37

channels. You'll find the links

2:39

in the show notes. Now,

2:42

here's Troy. I'll

2:46

just preface this by saying that I've been in touch with

2:48

Alice's parents and so Clive Ruggles

2:50

has very kindly agreed to

2:52

have it. Let us speak about this today, which is very

2:54

kind of him. They're very

2:56

active in the UK in pushing

2:59

for better recognition of stalking for changes

3:01

to legislation, for better kind of responses

3:03

to stalking across the board. So, they're

3:05

always keen to have their daughter Alice's

3:07

case discussed for that reason. Thank

3:10

you for actually doing that too because I think

3:12

it's really important that in cases

3:14

like this we're not just being gratuitous.

3:16

It's not taking advantage

3:19

of somebody's incredible loss. It's

3:21

an attempt to actually educate

3:23

and hopefully save other

3:26

people from going through something similar. Yeah,

3:28

it's an essential point. It's a really

3:30

tricky issue in working

3:33

in this space is that there is

3:35

a salaciousness to talking about this and

3:37

there is a true crime podcast. It's

3:39

a very good true crime podcast but

3:41

there absolutely are cases where people just

3:43

want to talk about it because it's

3:45

interesting. I suppose talking

3:49

about these cases and focusing on cases

3:51

that end in homicide while they're very

3:53

unusual stalking cases, often everything

3:55

up to the homicide is not

3:57

unusual. So, in Alice's case, it's a very good thing to talk

3:59

about this case in particular, the

4:02

stalking has very many characteristics

4:04

that are completely ordinary. And

4:06

then there's a point at which it does become

4:08

more extraordinary and obviously Alice was killed

4:11

by her ex-partner. But usually

4:14

the cases when they end in homicide, we

4:16

know more about the case. It's more

4:18

public so therefore we can talk about it. Like I

4:21

can't talk about cases that I know from my work

4:23

because they're not public. So that's part

4:25

of the reason we focus on the homicide cases very often. I

4:27

just want to emphasise that they're not

4:30

usual. They are very much

4:32

the extraordinary case and for most people

4:34

who are stalked, the stalking will stop

4:36

and it won't involve physical violence or

4:39

certainly not fatal violence. So

4:41

just kind of take that into account when listening

4:43

to a case that ends in homicide I think. So

4:47

Alice is a 24-year-old woman. She was

4:50

very, very well loved by her family and reportedly

4:52

very well loved by everyone who knew her

4:54

and she was killed

4:56

by her ex-boyfriend. She'd

4:59

known him for a year at the time of her

5:01

death and she'd broken up with

5:03

him about two and a half months before

5:06

she was killed by him. So

5:08

Alice's situation was that

5:10

she'd commenced

5:14

a relationship. He had contacted her.

5:16

He'd seen her on Facebook, friend of a friend. Seen

5:18

her on Facebook, kind of got in touch with her,

5:20

asked to be linked up by this friend. They started

5:22

a relationship kind of online. He was overseas at the

5:24

time so they texted. They

5:26

called. They kind of started a relationship online.

5:28

After about three months he moved back to

5:30

the UK for a short time and

5:33

they met each other in person

5:35

in January of 2016.

5:37

That relationship kind of continued. They perceived they were going

5:40

out before that but the relationship continued when they met

5:42

each other in person. They were together for about a

5:44

month. He then got sent back overseas. He was in

5:46

the military so he was being kind of deployed internationally

5:49

and the relationship continued. He was away for some

5:52

time and then came back I think about a

5:54

month later. Then they were in a relationship kind

5:57

of in person if you like. Three

6:00

to four. Months Four months until

6:02

August. Twenty Six saying even during that

6:05

time I actually live separately. Sorry Alice

6:07

Lived in Gateshead, which is near Newcastle,

6:09

a north east of England and on

6:11

her boyfriend was posted to Edinburgh in

6:13

Scotland about two and a half hour

6:16

drive. The relationship started

6:18

off very positively, bucks fairly quickly,

6:20

it was evident that by weren't

6:23

very happy to have arguments. In

6:26

hindsight, ask Alice. Is this a lot

6:28

of people? Spoke about the fact that

6:30

in the relationship had boyfriends actually very

6:32

controlling. Said is what we say these

6:34

choices control on a panel. We're. Jealous

6:39

as Alice having any contact love paypal he

6:41

did things to oscillate her like he asked

6:44

her to michael a social me a private

6:46

set of i'm in. Couldn't see her

6:48

on her social media arm. He would check

6:50

way she was overtones and his class surveillance

6:53

and margin remember them living in two different

6:55

cities or he'd be calling her and texting

6:57

her. And even do things like in

6:59

shelf uninvited. At. Locations where she had

7:02

to go away for work or something or

7:04

she was doing slanted cannot and member he

7:06

was two and a half hours away. So

7:08

this isn't just kind of in an accidental

7:10

thing like he cites. this kind of intrusiveness.

7:12

even we the in the relationship. When she's

7:14

voluntarily in a relationship with him, I, she

7:16

wants to be in that relationship. Is

7:18

kind of pushing his way into. Soap.

7:23

Gonna buy back on a Mark Twain sixteen

7:25

was having sex on Alice She was being

7:27

isolated from friends. He actually threatened some of

7:29

her male house mates that she live with

7:31

his new threatened him to stay away from

7:34

her the relationship breakdown in that meeting. Out

7:36

of that house she moved in with a

7:38

work colleague and then she saw to still

7:40

speaking to his being unfaithful to her. She

7:42

infant you about these and mailboxes cling to

7:44

see known for to stations and back and

7:46

forth with the arguments and by. Early

7:49

August she had decided to leave the relationship.

7:51

She thought ninety says this is not good

7:53

enough to control and he was t in

7:55

her loss and shouldn't trust him anymore. So

7:57

she ended the relationship. The shins it and.

8:00

The first week of August and

8:02

twenty sixteen and pretty much immediately

8:04

after the relationship with ended, the

8:07

stalking began and all those behaviors

8:09

that she'd experience during the relationship.

8:12

Continued. Fallen The And so in

8:14

this case, you can really say that

8:16

continuation of coercive control. Into stalking,

8:18

post relationship and sites. I

8:20

have now ex boyfriend. Be.

8:22

Restarts: Texting. And calling constantly she

8:25

refuses to talk to him side and

8:27

he calls friends and family members work

8:29

colleague from to get them to to

8:31

condemn encourage her to resume the relationship

8:34

with him. He views between anger intimidation

8:36

and on as saying he loves her

8:38

and want to be with her friends

8:40

to kill himself. With various points on

8:43

she's quite concerned. see him. When

8:45

he says since killing so she actually gets

8:47

or in touch with his army base and

8:49

says look he's not well can someone go

8:51

check in The microchip name is absolutely fine

8:53

as is none in dialysis making up stories

8:55

answered and she seems like she's in our

8:58

control said is all kind of goes on

9:00

arm for some time in September so he

9:02

and the months off library top he actually

9:04

travels down to Gateshead any size of have

9:06

flatline at not knocking on the door he's

9:08

not they pretending he's somewhere else but then

9:10

he turns up at the window and he

9:12

gives a chocolate flowers and one of. The

9:15

middle of not crossing over a strike,

9:18

Alice's get increasingly frightened as this. She

9:20

thinks he's hacking into her social media and

9:22

his phone accounts and he actually lighter on

9:24

agrees when she confronts him with this is

9:27

Things A things are happening He knows things

9:29

he shouldn't know. And then she

9:31

starts. In September she stopped seeing all the

9:33

guy she's She's met someone else. Is

9:35

having contact with the other

9:38

guy and. The.

9:40

Ex boyfriend realizes this and contacts

9:42

have a man again. Can

9:45

get information contact on as at all united

9:47

she's to timing us and whatever and sites

9:49

I'm trying to. See. With her license. So.

9:55

Alice. Eventually goes the police on the

9:57

system of title for the first son arms.

10:00

We actually tried to call the police a week prior to

10:02

that, but she was on hold for seven minutes and eventually

10:04

gave up. She calls the police

10:06

on the 1st of October. They

10:08

take an initial report. They send the police officer

10:10

around to speak to her. That police officer says,

10:13

oh, actually, this is more concerning than that initial

10:15

report made it seem and actually

10:17

does quite a thorough chat,

10:20

does a risk assessment, assesses her

10:22

as being at medium risk using

10:24

the particular tool that they use in the UK.

10:28

And it's sufficiently concerned, it

10:30

suggests to Alice that they could take out

10:32

what they have to determine the police in

10:34

the UK called Police Information Notice. I think

10:36

it's called a PIN. And

10:38

essentially, it's a safety notice. In

10:41

Australia, we have a similar thing where police can

10:43

kind of say you

10:45

give a person a formal warning

10:48

saying you need to stop doing what you're doing. And

10:50

if you don't, we will go further.

10:53

So they took that path in

10:55

this case on that first occasion.

10:57

And Alice was quite happy with that, by all

10:59

accounts. She really didn't want him to be arrested.

11:02

She was one of the stalking to stop. And

11:04

she felt that this would be effective. She was told

11:07

quite clearly that if he then contacted her again, then

11:09

they would proceed with charging him with harassment. So

11:12

that was actually never communicated to him by

11:14

the police. They called his base and

11:16

the army communicated that to him. So he's

11:18

trying to command, communicated that to him. And he

11:20

said that he understood and he said that it wasn't

11:22

actually done by police. Five

11:26

days later, he sent her a parcel and a letter. He

11:29

clearly at that point knew the police were involved. And

11:31

the letter is kind of quite clear. Alice

11:33

promptly reported that. And she

11:35

got a different police officer because that's the way these

11:38

systems work. You don't get the same person. She got a

11:40

different police officer who came around, had

11:42

a chat to her and basically said

11:44

to her, you know, do you think this is harassment?

11:46

You know, he said, do you want him arrested? She

11:48

said, no, I just want the stalking to stop. That

11:51

police officer chose not to proceed with criminal charges. Alice

11:53

subsequently said to her family, I felt completely fobbed off.

11:55

They just weren't interested in doing anything. They were just

11:57

looking for ways to get out of it. So

12:00

nothing really happened from that. A

12:03

few days later, October 11, she

12:06

calls the police again because he's continuing

12:08

to harass her. She tells her sister

12:10

later that day, you know, she feels like, you

12:12

know, the police aren't helping her at all. And

12:14

I think the Quota says they'll respond when he

12:16

stabbed me. And

12:18

the next day she was found dead in her flat

12:20

having been stabbed 24 times. So

12:23

that's basically the

12:26

case that led to a

12:28

series of inquiries. The

12:30

perpetrator that Alice's ex-boyfriend is

12:32

now serving a 22 year sentence in prison.

12:35

So she was murdered on the 12th of October 2016, having

12:39

been stalked for about two and a half months since

12:42

the end of the relationship and prior to that

12:44

having been in a coercively controlling relationship for all

12:47

of eight months, maybe nine, 10

12:49

months at the outside. And one

12:51

of the things that the Ruggles family was very

12:54

clear about in all their communications with

12:56

the various inquiries was that Alice was

12:58

a very outgoing, assertive woman. She was

13:00

not someone who was vulnerable. And in

13:02

fact, they perceived that that actually may

13:04

have been to her actually because I'm

13:06

helpful because when she presented to police, she

13:08

was very calm. She presented, you

13:10

know, very kind of as they described,

13:12

not hysterical. She was very kind of calm about what

13:14

was happening and she was very clear and they they

13:16

felt that this may have actually meant the police took

13:18

it less seriously. So you kind of damned if you

13:20

do and damned if you don't. And

13:23

essentially, there's a series of points at

13:25

which different things could have happened and

13:28

didn't that ended in Alice's

13:30

death. Now, whether any

13:33

of those different things happening would have

13:35

changed the outcome. I

13:38

think, you know, no one knows

13:40

that. And I've I've worked with

13:42

cases where things

13:44

went wrong. But I think even if things have

13:47

gone right, it still may have

13:49

ended the way it ended. We're the homicide. But

13:52

that said, things clearly went wrong in

13:54

Alice's case. And she clearly didn't have

13:56

adequate responses. In retrospect,

13:59

if he's violating. an order, surely

14:02

that's the crime. It's got nothing to do

14:04

with what Alice wants. He has

14:07

violated an order, which

14:10

he should have taken seriously and there

14:12

should be legal consequences. This is the

14:14

problem. It's

14:16

a tricky situation. I do acknowledge that,

14:18

but yes, I think fundamentally police

14:22

have discretion about pursuing offences

14:24

and to be very frank, I mean, even the

14:27

very first time she reported it, the police

14:29

probably could have pursued charges at

14:31

that point. And Alice clearly,

14:33

clearly stated she didn't want him to be

14:35

arrested, so she was clearly stating that. And

14:38

this is something that you do see and

14:41

I work with police a lot and I

14:43

am sympathetic to some

14:45

police are trying to maintain

14:47

relationships with the person who is a complainant who's

14:50

reporting the offence. They don't want to drive that

14:52

person away. They want them to feel like they

14:54

can report things. So there is a

14:56

delicate line, but I do

14:58

think, I think you're right that fundamentally

15:00

there comes a point when the

15:02

police do have to kind of make

15:04

a decision to act. And I think

15:06

sometimes it's too easy not to act in

15:09

these cases because there are lots of reasons not to and

15:12

insufficient reasons to do it because it's hard or

15:15

at least it's perceived to be hard. And so I

15:17

think that when I say to people, you

15:19

know, don't underplay

15:21

how worried you are, you know, Alice was

15:23

saying that she was scared. The police knew

15:25

she was scared. They ticked the box saying

15:27

she was frightened on that first report, but

15:31

that still didn't get communicated into the second report. But

15:33

the second police officer didn't record that, didn't kind of

15:35

take that into account in the right way that they

15:37

should have. I

15:53

know it's so easy as a woman

15:55

to assume that people say, look, you're

15:57

overreacting, you're over emotional, you're overly sensitive.

16:00

You're feeling guilty, you didn't end things properly,

16:02

you should have just ghosted them, or you

16:04

should have just done this. All

16:07

these sort of, kind of

16:09

blaming the victim as well things that the

16:11

victim's contributing to the problem. And

16:14

if your friends and family don't take you seriously,

16:17

how do you get the police to? There

16:20

isn't a right thing you can do.

16:22

There's not a right way of

16:25

doing this that will guarantee that the

16:27

right thing will happen or that it will

16:30

protect you and all the things you want to happen will happen. The

16:33

first thing I think is really important is to

16:36

use the word stalking. If you've

16:38

experienced this repeated pattern of intrusions

16:40

into your life and it's making

16:42

you scared, chances are

16:45

it's stalking. So use the word stalking to describe

16:47

it. That's the first thing, and

16:49

use the word stalking to describe it to

16:51

the police, to other people. Don't try to

16:53

kind of underplay it. Now

16:55

just because you've used the word stalking doesn't mean

16:57

the person will get charged with stalking. The police

16:59

do have a response, but that's kind of a

17:01

separate issue. But I think calling it what it

17:04

is, I think is important. The

17:06

problem we have with stalking is a

17:09

failure to recognise. So there's a failure

17:12

to see that these patterns

17:15

of behaviour are abnormal. And

17:18

that's partly because they look

17:20

like behaviour that isn't abnormal. So making

17:22

telephone calls is not inherently problematic. Sending

17:26

text messages is not inherently problematic. And flowers

17:28

is not inherently problematic. The

17:30

problem of stalking is the

17:33

cumulativeness and the unwantedness of the

17:35

behaviour. And so trying

17:37

to communicate in a

17:39

system that doesn't see patterns, which is

17:42

the systems we have with police, they

17:44

don't think in patterns. They think in

17:46

incidents. So as a victim, if

17:48

you go to the police and say, this person has

17:51

sent me these text messages or left this

17:53

thing at my house. For

17:56

the police agencies I've worked with and

17:58

also the... reading I've done, I

18:01

have other police agencies I don't have direct knowledge

18:03

of. Part of

18:05

the issue is it's usually very difficult

18:08

for the police officer who

18:11

gets that report. There's nothing

18:13

prompting them or it's difficult for

18:15

them in their systems to see the last time you came

18:17

in and reported this and

18:19

the time before and the time before

18:22

that. So there's nothing in the systems

18:24

that ties these incidents together. So you

18:26

have to have a police officer who

18:28

believes you, who believes what you're saying

18:31

and different people get believed differently. So they

18:34

have to believe what you're saying. They'll have to

18:36

have the time and the interest to look back

18:38

in their systems and look it all up separately

18:41

because they can't just go I'm just going to

18:43

find these different reports. It doesn't work like that.

18:45

It's all incident based. And

18:48

they have to recognise that

18:50

a pattern of behaviour that with each

18:52

single behaviour isn't a crime. So

18:54

there was no threat. There was no violence.

18:57

None of the single incidents were

18:59

criminal, but together they're

19:02

a crime and they have to understand that.

19:04

So there's so many hurdles and

19:07

barriers. And then even if you

19:09

get the police officer who

19:11

does see all that and goes, yep, absolutely,

19:13

let's go, then their

19:16

sergeant has to see it as well. And

19:18

then the police prosecutor has to see it. And

19:20

then the magistrate has to see it.

19:22

So at every single moment, every

19:25

time it hits a barrier, you have to

19:27

have people who understand. So if

19:30

the police officer who takes that first report,

19:33

go, yeah, I think this is stalking. I want to charge

19:35

stalking. Quite often what happens is it

19:37

gets to the point of the prosecutor and the

19:39

prosecutor goes, oh, it's a proof stalking. I've got

19:41

to prove a course of conduct. I've got to

19:43

prove multiple things. Rather than doing stalking,

19:45

let's just charge them with using telecommunications service to

19:47

harass because I don't have to prove one thing.

19:49

So we can just do them five times for

19:51

telecommunications to harass because they made five phone calls. Yeah,

19:54

they were just going to prove five different things. I might get four of

19:56

them. So there's all

19:59

these systemic problems. that aren't

20:01

actually about individual people. They're

20:03

about systemic issues that mean

20:05

that stalking vanishes because the

20:07

systems we use to police this

20:09

stuff don't let it easy

20:11

to see or record or follow. That's

20:14

also compounded by lack of recognition and knowledge and

20:16

training and all that, absolutely 100%. In

20:20

my work, over a long time with

20:22

police on these kinds of things, both in family violence and

20:24

in stalking, I am

20:26

of the view that you can get the biggest

20:28

bang for your buck by having systems that make

20:30

it easy for people to recognise because if they

20:33

can see it, a lot

20:35

of them will act on it because they're not bad people.

20:37

They want to do the right thing, but often

20:40

the right thing is much, much, much, much harder

20:42

to do than the wrong thing, which is not

20:44

seeing it and missing it and putting it aside.

20:46

It is

20:50

difficult because, of course, the

20:52

cases that end in homicide like Alice's, they

20:54

get looked at with a

20:57

thousand times magnification and so all the things

20:59

that go wrong, we

21:01

can see it and those cases end in homicide

21:03

and so something clearly went wrong. If

21:06

I felt like there were a whole bunch

21:08

of cases of stalking where everything was going

21:10

right and that's why they weren't ending in

21:12

homicide, I would be less inclined

21:14

to be as critical of responses

21:16

in cases that do. But

21:19

that's not what I think is happening. What

21:22

I think is happening is that pretty much all the cases

21:24

are getting the same response and occasionally it ends in homicide

21:26

because homicide is very rare. That's

21:29

not just my perception. There's research,

21:31

there's evidence to suggest that generally

21:33

police responses to stalking are pretty bad.

21:36

Police don't recognise it. They don't see it. They

21:38

don't try and prosecute it as soon as it's there.

21:41

Not all police. It's true, it's

21:43

not all police. Lots of police are doing the right thing and

21:45

trying their hardest, but the

21:48

systems aren't helping them to see stalking

21:50

and respond to it effectively and it's

21:52

more, I would suggest, good luck than

21:54

good management. That we

21:56

don't see more serious violence in

21:59

stalking cases. And

22:02

while that's happening, what we do

22:05

see is vast amounts of significant

22:07

psychological harm for stalking victims that's

22:10

being caused regardless of physical violence because if

22:12

you are living your life with the presumption

22:14

that someone is watching you constantly and

22:17

could appear at any moment and

22:19

might hurt you, even if they

22:21

don't ever physically hurt you, they're hurting you. And

22:24

we're not responding well enough to stop that. In

22:27

terms of police saying to

22:29

somebody, do you want us to arrest

22:31

him? It's a fairly confrontational thing when

22:33

you're already fearful, as Alice

22:35

was. And the last thing

22:37

you want to do is escalate and inflame

22:39

them even more. And

22:42

if they're arrested and unless they're going to

22:44

prison for 22 years. Which

22:47

isn't going to happen, right? Correct.

22:50

Yeah. And they're going to be

22:52

out. They're going to be angrier at you. They're

22:55

already thinking dysfunctionally. They're controlling. It's

22:58

how to poke the beast. This

23:00

is one of the challenges that, like,

23:03

so police focus on crime.

23:05

Right? They say, right, has a crime occurred?

23:08

Let's prosecute the crime. That's

23:10

great. It's important. Central role of

23:12

the police, great. In

23:15

these cases, they need to be as

23:17

concerned, if not more concerned, about

23:21

victim safety and preventative policing.

23:24

Because of whether they're going to prosecute a crime, they

23:26

need to be mindful of when this person walks

23:29

out the door, the crime

23:31

is still happening. How am I going to

23:33

do things to disrupt that crime and to keep

23:35

that person safe? Because they're not walking in

23:37

reporting a theft that happened yesterday and it's

23:41

over. They're in the middle of being assaulted. And

23:43

when they leave the building, they're still being offended against.

23:46

But that's not how police systems work. Police

23:49

are reactive, not proactive. But

23:52

their role is to serve and protect. And

23:55

they're supposed to be protecting the community. Yes,

23:58

I don't disagree with that. you at all, that's

24:02

not how police are actually funded or trained. What

24:05

gets reported, how many crimes happen? Not

24:07

how many crimes are prevented, right? Police

24:10

get more money when there's more crimes. They don't get more money when there's

24:12

less crimes. So a lot

24:15

of the work that I do myself,

24:17

but also colleagues of mine do, is

24:19

around trying to help police understand it's

24:22

not individual police, it's police agencies and

24:24

systems to help them go, you need

24:26

to focus on prevention in these cases,

24:28

recognition prevention. If you prosecute a

24:31

crime in the process, that's fabulous. But

24:34

that should be what you do as part

24:36

of an overall strategy to prevent harm to

24:38

these people. Sometimes the prosecution itself

24:40

is the biggest risk management thing. That's the best

24:42

thing you can do because prosecuting actually does stop

24:45

the person. In fact, I would suggest in a

24:47

lot of cases that's highly effective in helping the

24:49

person. You

24:51

need to actually understand if it's going to or not.

24:53

You need to actually understand what's happening and assess the

24:55

risk and go, okay, putting this intervention order in place

24:58

or this restraining order in place. This

25:00

probably will have a deterrent effect for

25:02

this particular offender because they're generally quite

25:04

prosocial. They don't have other offenses

25:06

and they're scared of the police. So having

25:09

an order in the threat of a criminal

25:11

sanction is potentially enough to stop them. There's

25:13

a colleague of mine from Sweden who's done some really

25:16

good research showing that restraining

25:18

orders are more effective in low risk cases.

25:20

That's actually really important to know. Yeah, yeah.

25:22

That's not how restraining orders are issued. Restraining

25:24

orders are just a homeless bolus. You

25:27

just do it. In fact, very often here

25:29

in Victoria where I'm based, the

25:31

first thing a police officer will do if you walk into

25:33

a police station and say, I think I'm being stalked, they

25:35

will say, well, let's get an intervention order. It's

25:38

the first thing I will say every single time.

25:40

Isn't that a positive thing then? Well,

25:43

no, because there's 100,000 intervention orders in the system

25:45

and they can't be policed. It's

25:48

26,000 breaches a year. That

25:50

intervention order is helpful if

25:53

it's done in a thoughtful way where it's

25:55

perceived that it will do something. But if the person's

25:57

already been stalked for two months, by the time they

25:59

turn up, when they're terrified,

26:01

the right response is, well, a crime's happening

26:03

and how do we keep you safe while we

26:06

prosecute this crime and make sure that this person

26:08

who's doing the stalking not only is held accountable

26:10

for that, but also maybe gets assessed and gets

26:12

the support that they need to actually stop stalking.

26:14

Because that's often also the other thing. The only

26:16

way a lot of these people can actually access

26:18

any service is through being prosecuted because

26:20

it's through the court and through a correctional response

26:22

that they actually access any sort of intervention and

26:25

assessment. So people who have major

26:27

mental illnesses that are unseen, from the

26:29

first one I've identified is at court because

26:32

they're not in contact with mental health services. That

26:35

gatekeeper role of prosecuting, remembering I said it's

26:37

not just that first police officer, it's every

26:39

police officer and every prosecutor in court in

26:41

the chain has to all think the same

26:43

thing. That's the only way

26:45

that that offender actually gets any sort of intervention that

26:47

might help them stop stalking. This

26:50

doesn't just stop in the high risk cases. And when

26:52

I say high risk, I don't just mean high risk

26:54

of violence, I also mean high risk of continuing to

26:56

stalk, which is also very, very, very damaging and much

26:58

more common. Those cases

27:00

won't just stop because the criminal justice system's

27:03

got involved. That's not how it

27:05

works. They need assistance

27:07

to help them stop. Is

27:09

it a curable behaviour, stalking?

27:11

Yeah. Most people who stalk stalk

27:14

once. So most people who

27:16

stalk don't reoffend. Reoffending

27:18

rates are high. So

27:22

I've done some work in the Netherlands

27:24

but also here in Australia and it

27:26

suggests that probably around 50% of people

27:28

who've been through some sort of criminal

27:30

justice process for stalking will have

27:32

further contact with police for stalking that same

27:34

victim. So very common

27:36

that the contact will continue.

27:39

But most people who stalk won't then go on

27:41

and have contact with police for

27:44

stalking somebody else. It'll be this situation,

27:46

this single event. And that might continue

27:48

for months, maybe for up to a

27:50

year or so and then it will

27:52

actually stop. From the

27:54

research we've done here in

27:56

Victoria, about 15, maybe 20%

27:58

of people. people stalk

28:00

multiple victims, or at least we can see

28:02

in their police reports, so not charges, but

28:04

they just reported to the police and the

28:07

police have identified that stalking is potentially there.

28:10

About 15, 20% of people who've stalked

28:12

before will come back to police for

28:14

targeting someone different. So not tiny,

28:16

but not huge either. In

28:20

your general reoffending stats, about 40% of

28:23

people who've offended will offend again, in the general sense,

28:25

not stalking, just generally. 40% of people who've done a

28:27

crime will do another crime. So

28:30

15 to 20% stalked

28:32

once will stalk a different victim, but

28:35

that continued stalking as the same victim,

28:37

more like 50, 60%

28:40

will continue to stalk after

28:42

they've had contact with criminal justice. So

28:45

it does need a response, but

28:50

almost everyone who stalks will

28:52

stop. So most stalking persists

28:55

for about half

28:57

of stalking is less than six months, and

29:00

the other half, most of

29:02

it's going out to a year, maybe a

29:04

little bit more, and then a very

29:06

small number of cases, maybe like 5%, are

29:08

going out beyond five years. So

29:11

it's got this real kind of ballooning at

29:13

the shorter duration, and then it's a long

29:15

tail out into long durations. And when you're

29:17

talking about those very long durations of stalking,

29:20

you're more than 12 months out into multiple

29:22

years, almost always the person stalking

29:24

has a major mental illness, and

29:26

they need psychiatric treatment to stop stalking.

29:30

Is there any value then in

29:32

a stalking register? I know

29:34

this is something that's been raised by quite a

29:36

few people. It's something that the Ruggles, the Alice

29:38

Ruggles Trust, the charity in Alice's name, has talked

29:40

about. It's something that there's been some cases here

29:42

in Australia where people have talked about this as

29:44

a response. My

29:47

view is that it's probably not

29:49

the best way of achieving that

29:51

goal. We've got things like

29:53

sex offender registers. Where there's

29:55

been research on those registers, they haven't

29:57

been shown to have any effect on reoffending. So

30:00

they don't have any kind of deterrent effect. They're

30:03

enormously resource intensive to police

30:05

and to maintain and to

30:07

monitor. And

30:10

most people do not need

30:12

to be on a register. I

30:14

don't disagree that the idea of making

30:17

it easier for police and

30:20

other agencies to link reports

30:22

together and to see when people have histories

30:24

is a good idea. So I

30:27

think there are better ways to do that than a

30:29

register that are less resource intensive and

30:31

that will allow more resources. There's no way to

30:33

just police stalking more effectively and respond to stalking

30:35

more effectively. And that doesn't just mean police response.

30:37

It's also things like victim advocacy services and things

30:39

like in the UK they've got a national stalking

30:41

helpline. So if you think you're being stalked, you

30:43

can literally call a phone number and talk to

30:45

someone who can talk to you about stalking. Actually

30:48

all the questions you've asked me today, in

30:50

the UK you can literally call a phone number from

30:53

someone who can talk to you about all that as an individual

30:55

person. And that would be a

30:57

massive win. Like from my mind that's a hugely

31:00

useful use of resources to give

31:02

victim support when they feel isolated and alone. But

31:05

within a policing context, I

31:07

think you can achieve those, that

31:10

linking up and that systemic change. To

31:12

be honest, just by making some IT changes

31:14

that mean police can type in, have these

31:16

two people been involved in reports before and

31:19

it brings up a list and a summary,

31:22

that doesn't need a register. Without a violation of

31:24

privacy, the data's already in their system. That's

31:26

right. The data's in their systems, it's just

31:28

not accessible. And so I know, for example,

31:30

work with Dutch police. I've done, that's

31:32

literally what they did. So they had a massive inquiry

31:35

after a series of homicides into the fact that their

31:37

stalking responses were inadequate. And one

31:39

of the recommendations that came out of

31:42

that was create an IT query in

31:44

their system that runs automatically every morning

31:46

and picks up cases where the same

31:48

person has reported being

31:51

harassed by an individual multiple times. And

31:53

so each day, every police station just

31:55

gets a, hey, this person's reported twice

31:57

about this same individual. Can someone have a look at this and...

31:59

just check out what's going on and follow it up. And

32:02

then that's teamed up with a tiered risk

32:04

assessment response. So if it is stalking, the

32:06

next thing that happens is a

32:08

screening for risk. And then if it is that, then

32:11

it moves up into another level and then they get

32:13

a different response, right? So you get this kind of

32:16

scanning tiered response and it's not reliant

32:18

on the victim turning up every time

32:21

and saying, oh, I'm being stalked and having to

32:23

explain themselves again. And it's not reliant

32:25

on a police officer looking at a stalking register

32:27

that might have a hundred thousand people on it

32:29

and going, all right, well, that person's on the

32:31

register. Great. Okay.

32:34

You've actually got a system that says

32:37

how seriously should we take this person at this time

32:39

now? Not just that everyone in a court system at

32:41

some point agreed that they'd stalked before. That's

32:43

what a register shows. How

32:46

can we help to try and get something like that

32:48

implemented? I

32:51

think to be honest, what's

32:54

missing is political will.

32:57

Here in Victoria, we've very recently had a

32:59

case not unlike Alice's

33:01

and Alice Ruggles in many respects. It

33:04

has some very important differences in that there

33:06

was no intimate relationship between the person stalking

33:09

and the victim who was killed. But

33:11

in other respects, it has a lot of similarities

33:14

to Alice's case. There's

33:16

a lot of media coverage of that case. It

33:18

will, I'm hopeful, have a

33:20

coronal inquiry. And that

33:22

coronal inquiry, I'm very hopeful, will make

33:24

recommendations as to what government should do.

33:28

But even before that, when Celeste Mano, the

33:30

victim in that case, was murdered back in

33:32

November of 2020, the government

33:34

at the time, the attorney general at the time,

33:36

Jill Hennesy in Victoria, she asked the Victorian Law

33:38

Reform Commission to do a review of the

33:40

stalking law here and end up the

33:43

systems around stalking. And they produced an

33:45

interim report and then a full report, which was given to

33:47

government in 2022. It

33:50

had 45 recommendations for government. To

33:52

date, none of those recommendations have

33:54

been implemented. The Victorian police

33:57

Have implemented some steps towards...

34:00

Things at the they allow say recommended

34:02

arm but to my knowledge at the

34:04

moment they the only government agency that's

34:06

the signings on. I'm quite hopeful that

34:09

occur on your has been. Delayed

34:11

because. The criminal Chuck Hayes took so

34:14

long, I'm hopeful that there's a cranial

34:16

or inquiry nut case that will make

34:18

recommendations and to engender a government response.

34:21

Because. That political will.

34:24

Our. Don't just mean that from the politicians. I

34:26

also made. It from you know, senior

34:28

police and. Senior bureaucrats and

34:30

people in you know that

34:32

apartments? you have to Jamaica

34:34

sorry I mean political in

34:36

a broad sense. That's what's

34:39

needed and fundamentally I think

34:41

bit a misunderstanding. That. Stalking

34:43

isn't very common and it's not

34:45

very serious and occasionally bad things

34:47

happen. but broadly we probably do

34:49

iti and is just an inaccurate.

34:52

Understanding and that's what we don't have. Political

34:54

will is my and. Thank

34:56

you so much truly And I'm

34:58

hoping that if anyone is. Being.

35:01

Stalked that they actually now

35:03

known. To. Document.

35:06

To document with the police. And

35:09

keep the sistine. If. You

35:11

not getting the response that you need. To.

35:14

Thank you so much for joining us and

35:16

helping us to educate and hopefully inform a

35:18

lot better about something. And I think Cb

35:20

talks memo Quarrelsome. Norris. Cancer.

35:23

Look, thank you so much the

35:25

opportunity and all. Just absolutely agree

35:27

with you There document persist. And

35:30

seek help. Seek support for me family

35:32

and friends You know in it alone even a

35:34

you feel like you have to keep pushing to

35:36

get a response cause he deserved Hatteras. Prime.

35:49

Inside his friend's ex is a

35:51

listener. Original production. It's hosted by

35:53

me Catherine folks and is produced

35:55

by it Couldn't. sound

35:57

design limiting is burning kelly Thank

36:00

you.