The most common action against someone who threatens violence is to obtain an interdict. An interdict is an order by the court that someone should refrain from doing something. However, in Scotland the alternative to such an interdict is lawburrows. The legislation was passed in 1429 by James I's Parliament as a remedy against threats to the safety of members of the public. In simple terms, if A is afraid of B's conduct and threats, A can ask a Sheriff to hear the case against B. Lawburrows is a civil action, not a criminal action so the standard of proof is 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If the Sheriff is satisfied that the matter's been proven on balance of probabilities, the Sheriff can require B to pay a deposit. If A later shows the Sheriff that B has continued to put A in fear, the deposit can be forfeited and divided equally between A and the court. Importantly, the remedy of lawburrows doesn't preclude a criminal action being taken against B. It's all remarkably straightforward by the standards of many modern court actions, but then again you'd expect that of a piece of legislation that's almost 600 years old.
Readers of a certain age may remember the BBC TV programme 'Call My Bluff'. The point of the game was for the teams to take turns providing three definitions of an obscure word, only one of which was correct. The other team then had to guess which was the correct definition, the other two being 'bluffs'. At the risk of dating myself, the bow-tie-wearing Frank Muir was the main 'bluffer' when I used to watch the programme as a child in the 1970s and I can just imagine him having a great time with 'lawburrows'. However, I can assure you that my definition from the previous paragraph is indeed correct, and lawburrows is nothing to do with rabbits or Middle-earth.
The reason I came across lawburrows is that my litigation colleagues recently advised one of my commercial clients on a successful lawburrows application as a result of some particularly unpleasant and threatening behaviour from my client's neighbour. Matters had gone well beyond the 'raised eyebrow at the height of the Leylandii hedge' and some of the threats from the neighbour were literally bordering on the murderous. I'm pleased to report that the unpleasant neighbour is now £5,000 worse off since he was ordered to deposit that amount with the court, he knows for a fact that lawburrows is nothing to do with Watership Down or Middle-earth, and if he doesn't keep a civil tongue in his head he can say goodbye to the £5,000 indefinitely. No bluffing.