The short answer

GPS monitoring can strengthen protection in domestic abuse and stalking cases, but a tag is not a forcefield and it is not automatically a real-time alarm.

England and Wales already use electronic monitoring for some Domestic Abuse Protection Orders and for certain people released from prison. However, current government guidance says that a breach detected through a DAPO tag may be reported to police by 10:00am the following day. A separate £5 million proximity-monitoring pilot—designed to alert services when a monitored offender approaches a victim—was announced in March 2026. The crucial policy question is therefore not simply whether we tag perpetrators. It is whether alerts are reliable, monitored around the clock and connected to a fast, trained and accountable safeguarding response.

Credit and source note

This article was prompted by a LinkedIn post by Deborah Jones, Founder and CEO of Resolute Women’s Support Services. Deborah has been campaigning with Deborah Alderson and others for stronger use of GPS tagging and proximity notification systems in the UK. Her post makes the essential point that technology cannot protect survivors unless it sits inside a rapid, coordinated safeguarding response.

The international figures shared in the post draw principally on Robert Kaiser’s September 2025 paper, GPS Tagging and Proximity Notification Systems for Domestic Violence Prevention: Protecting Women, Saving Lives. Kaiser has since said that this was his first paper on the subject and that a more comprehensive peer-reviewed paper is forthcoming. The figures should therefore be read as reported findings within that paper, alongside official UK evidence and continuing evaluation—not as proof that every system, in every setting, will produce the same result.

Why this matters now

Domestic abuse protection is still too often organised around the victim changing her life. She moves home. She changes her route to work. She moves the children’s school. She avoids familiar shops. She blocks numbers, changes devices, watches every car and plans every handover around risk.

The perpetrator may be told not to approach or contact her, but the practical burden of detecting, documenting and proving a breach can remain with the person who is already frightened.

“Victims should never have to change their lives—offenders should be restricted, monitored and held accountable.”

The scale remains stark. The latest Office for National Statistics release estimates that 3.8 million people aged 16 and over experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2025. Police recorded 1,350,460 domestic abuse-related incidents and crimes during the same year, including 816,493 recorded crimes. The ONS also reports that 72.1% of recorded domestic abuse-related crime victims were female.

For the combined three years ending March 2022 to March 2024, ONS homicide data recorded 245 female domestic homicide victims. In 178 cases, the suspect was a male partner or former partner. That averages a little over one woman every week. Statistics do not capture the lives disrupted, the children living with fear or the many incidents never reported.

How do GPS tagging and proximity alerts work?

The terms are often used as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

That distinction matters. A court may order electronic monitoring to check compliance with an exclusion zone. That does not necessarily mean a victim carries a proximity device, receives a warning or gets an immediate police response.

What does the international evidence say?

Kaiser’s 2025 paper brings together examples from Spain, Portugal, France, Switzerland and Australia. The strongest lesson is not that all electronic monitoring works. It is that design and delivery determine whether the technology protects, reassures or fails.

Spain: COMETA as a joined-up safeguarding model

Spain’s COMETA system combines offender monitoring, survivor-side technology, judicially defined exclusion zones, a 24-hour monitoring centre and police response. The 2025 paper reports that no woman was killed while under active COMETA protection in the evidence it examined, that police intervention followed alerts in approximately five to seven minutes, and that more than 80% of protected women reported feeling safer.

Those are powerful reported outcomes, but the critical feature is the system around the tag: trained operators, clear escalation, national coordination, monitored exclusion zones and rapid human action.

Portugal: coordination and high completion

The paper reports a 97% successful-completion rate in Portugal’s system, with 3% of cases revoked. Again, the model is not a loose collection of ankle tags. It combines national standards with monitoring and local operational knowledge.

Queensland: what failure looks like

The Queensland controlled trial is just as important as the success stories. The report records that 51% of scenarios fully succeeded, 23% partially succeeded and 26% failed. Victim-carried devices performed successfully in only around 35% to 38% of scenarios, while only 49% of alerts operated as expected overall.

That is not an argument for abandoning technology. It is a warning against rolling out technology that creates confidence without dependable protection. A false sense of security can itself create risk.

Does the UK use GPS tags for domestic abuse?

Yes—but through several different legal and operational routes, and not yet as one nationally available real-time proximity system.

1. Domestic Abuse Protection Orders

Part 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders. A DAPO can prohibit contact or entry into defined areas, impose positive requirements and require electronic monitoring to check compliance with other conditions.

A DAPO can last for as long as the court considers necessary. However, section 38(5) of the 2021 Act states that an electronic monitoring requirement itself cannot have effect for more than 12 months. The wider order may continue after tagging ends.

As at 27 August 2026, published government guidance still describes DAPOs as a pilot. They are available where the person from whom protection is sought lives in:

• Greater Manchester;
• the London boroughs of Croydon, Bromley or Sutton;
• Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, or Stockton-on-Tees; or
• North Wales: Anglesey, Gwynedd, Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire or Wrexham.

The British Transport Police can also apply. The Government reported in November 2025 that more than 1,000 DAPOs had been issued since the pilot began.

2. Domestic Abuse Perpetrators on Licence

The Domestic Abuse Perpetrators on Licence scheme applies to some adults released from prison who are assessed as posing a domestic abuse risk. It can use GPS to monitor curfews, exclusion zones, attendance and location trails. Importantly, the person’s index offence does not have to be labelled as a domestic abuse offence if the assessed risk justifies the condition.

Official statistics published in July 2026 say the scheme was live in eight probation regions and was scheduled to reach all twelve across England and Wales by September 2026. That published target should not be taken as confirmation that every region was operational on that date; check the current HM Prison and Probation Service position. At 31 March 2026, 2,700 people were on the DAPOL electronic-monitoring caseload; 6,638 new orders had been issued between June 2025 and March 2026.

3. The announced proximity-monitoring pilot

In March 2026, the Government announced that £5 million would fund a pilot using proximity technology to alert services when certain offenders convicted of crimes such as domestic abuse or stalking approach a victim. The May 2026 cross-government strategy also commits to exploring proximity monitoring and to rolling DAPOs out nationally.

That is significant progress. But an announcement is not the same as a system being available to every survivor or family court today. Published guidance does not yet say that every domestic abuse victim can obtain a live, mobile proximity alert.

What the latest UK evaluation found

The Ministry of Justice’s July 2026 evaluation of the post-release DAPOL scheme provides a balanced picture:

• practitioners valued GPS data as a risk-management tool;
• location evidence could remove some of the burden from survivors to prove where the perpetrator had been;
• around 88% of the Victim Liaison Officers and Domestic Abuse Safety Officers surveyed considered electronic monitoring very beneficial in reassuring survivors;
• some tags were not fitted promptly, leaving periods without monitoring;
• staff reported delays obtaining or interpreting location data;
• some survivor-support staff considered breach enforcement too lenient;
• the interim analysis did not identify a statistically significant reduction in domestic-violence incidents during tagging, although the report warns that the measure was limited and no firm conclusion should yet be drawn; and
• the longer-term effect on reoffending has not yet been established.

This is exactly why campaigning by Deborah Jones, Deborah Alderson and others matters. Expansion must not mean simply purchasing more devices. It must mean closing the operational gaps that determine whether an alert becomes protection.

What does this mean for litigants in person in the family court?

Can the family court order GPS monitoring?

In a DAPO pilot case, the family court can make a DAPO and may include electronic monitoring where the statutory conditions are met and monitoring is necessary and proportionate. A victim can apply, an authorised third party may apply with permission, or the court may consider making a DAPO during existing family proceedings.

The power does not mean every request for a tag will be granted. The court will consider the evidence, the risk, the proposed conditions, proportionality, practicality and the views of the protected person. Electronic monitoring is used to support compliance with another requirement, such as an exclusion zone; it is not a free-standing cure for all risk.

How do I apply for a DAPO in the family court?

If the person from whom protection is sought lives in one of the pilot areas, the application route is:

1. complete form DA1;
2. prepare a supporting witness statement;
3. use form DA2 if applying as a third party and seeking the court’s permission;
4. use form C8 if your or your child’s contact details must be withheld;
5. if unrepresented, use form D89 to ask a court official to serve the application or order; and
6. do not serve the application personally.

There is no court fee for a victim applying for a DAPO. The listed family courts are Manchester, Stockport, Wigan, Croydon, Bromley, Teesside, Caernarfon, Prestatyn and Wrexham. Always check the current GOV.UK guidance before filing because the pilot and national rollout may change.

What if the other person does not live in a pilot area?

A non-molestation order and, where relevant, an occupation order remain available under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. A non-molestation order does not automatically come with GPS monitoring, but breach without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. Depending on the facts, the police may also consider other protective powers, and a criminal court may make a restraining order.

The correct order depends on the relationship, evidence, risk, existing proceedings and the protection actually needed. Do not delay an urgent application simply because a DAPO or proximity tag is unavailable in your area.

What about child arrangements proceedings?

GPS monitoring does not decide whether contact is safe. In child arrangements proceedings where domestic abuse is alleged, admitted or otherwise raises concern, Practice Direction 12J requires the court to identify and address the risk of harm. That can require decisions about fact-finding, interim contact, final welfare arrangements, handovers, communication, supervision and protective measures.

Section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises a child who sees, hears or experiences the effects of domestic abuse as a victim in their own right where the statutory relationship conditions are met. A protection plan must therefore consider schools, nurseries, handover points, health appointments, family members’ homes and the risk of a child being used to locate, monitor or pressure the other parent.

Practical steps for a litigant in person

1. Describe the risk, not only the label

“I am frightened” matters, but the court also needs the evidence and the mechanism of risk. Explain:

• what happened, when, where and who witnessed it;
• whether behaviour escalated after separation, proceedings, service of papers or a new relationship;
• any stalking, surveillance, repeated unwanted contact, threats, strangulation, weapons, suicide threats, abduction threats or breaches;
• how the person finds or approaches you;
• how the children are affected or used as a route of access or information; and
• why existing arrangements have not controlled the risk.

2. Make the requested conditions precise

An order must be clear enough to understand and enforce. Identify the locations and conduct that require protection: the home, workplace, children’s school, nursery, regular medical setting or a safe handover venue. Explain why a proposed distance or area is necessary. Avoid vague or unnecessarily broad requests that the court cannot apply fairly.

3. Organise evidence so a busy judge can use it

A practical evidence pack may include:

• a short dated chronology;
• copies of current and previous orders;
• police crime and incident reference numbers;
• a focused schedule of breaches;
• screenshots, call logs, emails, voicemails or doorbell footage, properly dated and explained;
• relevant third-party records, disclosure or witness evidence;
• a map or short explanation of proposed exclusion zones where necessary; and
• a concise statement linking the evidence to risk, child welfare and the order sought.

Do not bury the safeguarding case under hundreds of unlabelled screenshots. Pattern evidence is powerful when it is organised, sourced and connected to the legal issue.

4. Ask the operational questions

If electronic monitoring is proposed or ordered, seek clear information about:

• what exactly is being monitored;
• when the tag will be fitted and how you will know it is active;
• who receives an alert and within what timeframe;
• whether you receive any direct warning;
• what happens if the battery is not charged, the device is removed or signal is lost;
• what you should do if you see or hear from the person despite the tag;
• who will update you following a suspected breach; and
• what protection will replace the tag when the monitoring requirement ends.

A survivor should never be left to assume that monitoring is active, immediate or infallible.

5. Continue recording breaches

Technology may provide independent location evidence, but keep a safe, contemporaneous record of incidents and reports. Note the date, time, conduct, impact, police reference and any witness or supporting material. Do not place yourself at risk to collect evidence.

6. Treat every breach as a safeguarding event

A breach is not “just a technicality”. It may demonstrate testing of boundaries, escalation or disregard for court authority. Report breaches through the appropriate route and explain any pattern in later court documents. If danger is immediate, call 999.

What must a safe UK proximity-monitoring system include?

If the UK is to learn from COMETA and from the failures identified elsewhere, the following are not optional extras:

1. Survivor-informed risk assessment: exclusion zones and response plans must reflect real routines, children and patterns of abuse.
2. Offender-side accountability: the primary burden must rest on monitoring and restricting the perpetrator, not requiring the survivor to operate perfectly.
3. Optional survivor devices: a survivor should be fully informed and able to choose whether to carry a device without losing other protection.
4. 24/7 trained monitoring: alerts require human triage by staff who understand stalking, coercive control, escalation and domestic abuse risk.
5. Rapid police protocols: agencies must agree who acts, how quickly and at what threshold before the system goes live.
6. Reliable technology and redundancy: rural coverage, GPS drift, battery failure, tampering, outages and false alerts must have tested fallback arrangements.
7. Prompt fitting and activation: there must be no hidden period in which a survivor believes a tag is active when it is not.
8. Enforcement with teeth: repeated non-charging, tampering and exclusion-zone breaches must receive risk-led, timely decisions.
9. Clear survivor communication: survivors need accurate information about what the system can and cannot do.
10. Independent evaluation: publication must cover failures, missed alerts, response times, breaches, reoffending, survivor experience and unequal access—not only the number of tags fitted.
11. Privacy and data governance: location data must be protected, access must be auditable and survivor information must not create a new route for abuse.
12. An exit plan: risk does not automatically end when a 12-month electronic-monitoring requirement does.

Technology cannot end domestic abuse. But properly designed technology can create time, evidence and opportunity for people to intervene before a prohibited approach becomes another preventable tragedy.

Frequently asked questions

How JSH Law can help

If you are representing yourself in family proceedings, the difficulty is often not knowing that risk exists—it is presenting the pattern, evidence and protection needed in a form the court can use. JSH Law supports litigants in person with evidence organisation, safeguarding chronologies, breach schedules, witness statements, non-molestation and DAPO paperwork, Cafcass responses, hearing preparation and child-focused case presentation.

Book a consultation

If you are in immediate danger

Call 999. If calling from a mobile and you cannot speak, listen to the operator’s instructions and press 55 when prompted to use the Silent Solution. Do not assume that an electronic tag, court order or monitoring provider has already summoned help.

The National Domestic Abuse Helpline, run by Refuge, is available 24 hours a day on 0808 2000 247.

Sources and further reading

• Deborah Jones, LinkedIn post on GPS tagging and proximity notification systems.
• Robert Kaiser, GPS Tagging and Proximity Notification Systems for Domestic Violence Prevention (2025).
• Office for National Statistics, domestic abuse prevalence and trends: year ending March 2025.
• Office for National Statistics, domestic abuse victim characteristics: year ending March 2025.
• GOV.UK, Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders guidance.
• GOV.UK, applying for a DAPO in the family court.
• Domestic Abuse Act 2021, section 35: electronic monitoring requirements.
• Domestic Abuse Act 2021, section 38: duration and geographical effect.
• Ministry of Justice, DAPOL process and interim impact evaluation (July 2026).
• Ministry of Justice, announcement of the proximity-monitoring pilot (March 2026).
• Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 12J.