Should Killers and Stalkers Live in Restricted Zones?

Campaigners Call for Offender Restrictions After Release

Victims of serious crimes are calling for a radical shift in how offenders are managed after prison. They propose that those convicted of murder, manslaughter, or stalking should only be allowed to live and work in designated zones in the UK for life, rather than relying on exclusion zones around victims.

Voices of Victims: Safety and Freedom at Stake

Rhianon Bragg, held at gunpoint by her ex-partner Gareth Wyn Jones, described feeling “trapped” despite a wide exclusion zone covering four counties. Upon learning of his death, she described a sense of “freedom” for the first time since the attack — highlighting the psychological impact victims continue to endure.

Similarly, Emma King and Carole Gould, who lost loved ones to violent partners, advocate for shifting the responsibility away from victims. They argue that perpetrators should face lifetime movement restrictions, and victims should no longer feel they must limit their lives due to fear.

The Arguments for Setting up Exclusion Zones.

From a criminal defence lawyer’s viewpoint, it’s understandable that victims want greater assurances. Exclusion zones, while helpful, may still leave victims feeling unsafe or restricted. Creating “offender-only zones” might offer clarity, reduce risk of contact, and help victims reclaim a sense of normalcy.

Psychological trauma does not end with sentencing, and current arrangements arguably place the burden on victims to avoid perpetrators. Proactive zoning of high-risk offenders could be seen as a preventative measure, aligning with broader principles of safeguarding and public protection.

Against the Argument: Risk to Human Rights and Legal Proportionality

However, such proposals raise serious legal concerns. Confining individuals to a defined area long after their sentence risks breaching the Human Rights Act 1998 — specifically Article 5 (right to liberty) and Article 8 (right to private and family life).

Licence conditions must be proportionate, necessary, and based on ongoing risk assessments. A blanket policy for specific offence categories could be seen as punitive beyond the sentence and may not survive legal challenge.

As criminal defence lawyers, it is our role to ensure that liberty is not unjustly curtailed once a sentence is served. Justice requires fairness for all — even those convicted of the most serious offences.

The Importance of Justice for All Parties

This debate highlights the difficult balance between victims’ right to feel safe and offenders’ right to reintegrate. Any new policy must be evidence-led, risk-based, and capable of withstanding human rights scrutiny.

Rather than fixed zones, a more flexible system of electronic monitoring, psychological evaluations, and individually tailored restrictions may provide a workable compromise. This allows for victim safety without undermining fundamental legal principles.

Conclusion: Compassion and Constitution in Policy Making

Victims’ voices must be heard, but criminal justice reform must remain anchored in the rule of law. While the instinct to shield victims is just, it cannot justify indefinite restrictions without due process. True justice serves society by protecting the innocent and upholding the rights of all.

How We Can Help

If you have any questions or concerns regarding legal presentation for serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter or stalking offences, call us on 0161 477 1121 or email us to speak to one of our dedicated experts.