No need for all-new anti-stalking law

I refer to the report headlined 'Laws likely to be altered to criminalise stalking' (South China Morning Post, September 6).

The Government has formed the preliminary view that it will criminalise stalking by changing existing legislation rather than bringing in a new law.

The Government should be applauded for rejecting calls by the Law Reform Commission for comprehensive anti-stalking legislation.

I am concerned that such a law would do more harm than good and would adversely affect press freedom and freedom of assembly. Such a law could put at risk legitimate news-gathering activities. The rich and the powerful might threaten the media with legal action if there were stories about them. Investigative reporters would be hampered, and the right of the public to receive information would be restricted.

I understand the law suggested by the commission was modelled on the Protection from Harassment Act passed in 1997, in the United Kingdom. It should be noted that the act was criticised in the UK. In a UK Divisional Court case in 1999, a judge said, 'Whatever may have been the purpose behind the Act, its words are clear, and it can cover harassment of any sort.'

What we would call a 'stalking law' would not just deal with stalking. It would cover all kinds of possible harassment caused by, for example, door-to-door salesman, members of religious groups and troublesome neighbours. Therefore, the Government has the responsibility to tell the public clearly which kind of behaviour the law seeks to criminalise.