According to Baroness Scotland of Ashall, promoting the Bill in the House of Lords, this provision and the associated provisions of section 3A were intended to strengthen "the protection afforded to the bioscience industry, and those who work in it" including by "making it an offence to protest outside a person's home in a way that causes harassment, alarm or distress to the residents of that home.

It followed a commitment given by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on 8 March 2012 (International Women's Day) to remedy perceived deficiencies in the Act.

[19] This section gives a court dealing with a person convicted of an offence under sections 2 (harassment) or 4 (putting in fear of violence) of the Act the power to make a restraining order for the purpose of protecting "the victim of the offence" or "any other person mentioned in the order".

A person convicted of indictment of an offence falling within section 32(1)(b) of the 1998 Act (the racially or religiously aggravated version of the offence under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine[quantify], or to both.

In England and Wales, the Act now creates offences of harassment,[22] stalking,[23] putting people in fear of violence,[24] stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress,[25] breach of injunction[26] and breach of restraining order.

An example of this tort in action appears in Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC 1898 QB (1 August 2006).

[29] In Thomas v News Group Newspapers and Another (2001), Lord Philips MR said: "'Harassment' is, however, a word which has a meaning which is generally understood.

[31] Section 5 of the Act gives the court in criminal cases a power to grant restraining orders and section 5A, introduced by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, extends this power to cases where the defendant was acquitted, if the court "considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant.".

[33] The power to grant restraining orders is separate from and additional to the ability of claimants to seek injunctions in civil actions brought under section 3 of the Act.

[39]) In Wainwright v. Home Office (2003), Lord Hoffmann said "The requirement of a course of conduct shows that Parliament was conscious that it might not be in the public interest to allow the law to be set in motion for one boorish incident.

"[46] The justification for the imposition of liability based on constructive knowledge is the difficulty which might exist of proving mens rea on the part of "stalkers" who often suffer from mental or personality disorders.

Other cases are Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215, Thomas v News Group Newspapers [2001] EWCA 1233, Green v DB Group [2006] EWHC 1899, Rayment v MOD High Court 18 February 2010, Singh v Bhakar, Nottingham County Court, 24 July 2006, Conn v Sunderland [2007] EWCA 1492, Allen v South Southwark Court of Appeal 12 November 2008, Ferguson v British Gas [2009] EWCA 46, Ferguson v British Gas [2009] EWCA 46, Mullens v Accenture, 13 July 2010, Dowson v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police: 2, 20 October 2010.

[51] A written question, raised by a Member of Parliament in 2008 and relating to prosecutions under section 2 from the date of the Act to 2006,[52] showed the numbers of persons proceeded against under section 2 remained fairly steady during the period (5,540 in 1999 of whom 2,753 were found guilty, 5,446 in 2006 of whom 3,768 were found guilty).

Civil remedies include damages, interdict and non-harassment orders[54] backed by powers of arrest.

After Von Heussen found that she could get no help from the police, lawyers, or her local Member of Parliament she began researching anti-stalking laws in other countries.

After several years of effort she persuaded the Home Office under Prime Minister John Major to take the issue on as a matter of government policy.

She wrote the first draft of the Act and worked closely with ministers and senior civil servants in the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department as the final version took shape.

After Royal Assent she worked with Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Department in training judges, lawyers, other court personnel, police and voluntary organizations in the use of the Act.

Andrew Simester, a professor of law at King's College, London, believed it to be "unimpressive" and "hasty", and the result of political agitation; he contended that it "might well violate Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms".

[66] In a publication evaluating the effectiveness of the Act, Jessica Harris wrote that some magistrates felt "criminalising harassment cases might lead to unfounded accusations from complainants who are mistaken about another’s behaviour or are even vindictive.

Prosecutors accepted this point and agreed that they had to be on the lookout for what the police sometimes termed paranoid woman syndrome, where the putative victim read more into another's behaviour than was perhaps warranted."

The "attitudes of many working in the criminal justice system and society towards stalking remain in the dark ages.

"[68] Commentators such as George Monbiot have voiced the concern that the amended Act effectively "allows the police to ban any campaign they please", and that it has been used to prosecute peaceful protestors.

[69] In February 2012, Elfyn Llwyd MP, chairing an Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into reform of stalking law, said the Act was a "landmark piece of legislation".

[73] They are believed to have been created by police forces as a way of preventing people accused of harassment from claiming ignorance that their alleged behavior was undesired and thus avoiding successful prosecution under the Act due to lack of mens rea.

Equally we are aware that some consider Police Information Notices to lack teeth and that they give victims a false sense of security.

"[76] In 2014, the Commons Select Committee of Privileges investigated the issuing in 2012 of a PIN against an MP for statements made in Parliament.

[73] In 2015, the issuing of a PIN against a British journalist raised concerns about civil liberties and press freedom, creating demands for reform of the process.

[77][78] Because a PIN has no statutory basis and therefore no legal effect, there is no right of appeal against it, although a complaint can be made to the issuing police force.