Ann Coffey

|

Shoplifting - not a petty crime

There are many common myths surrounding shop theft that need to be exploded.
Some people think of shoplifting as a petty or victimless crime – just ordinary people taking a few bits and bobs off the shelves on impulse. But that is by no means the entire picture.

There were 10,000 physical assaults on shop workers last year and 7,000 were linked to shop lifting. The latest figures from the British Retail Consortium show that violent acts against staff are up 50 per cent in the past year.

The number of shop thefts continues to rise - 296,044 were recorded by the police in 2005-06, which was up by more than 14,200 on the previous year. Official figures show that between 2000 and 2006 shop theft increased by one per cent but data collected by the British Retail Consortium indicates an increase of 70 per cent in that period. The huge discrepancy could be down to under reporting to the police.

Shocking attacks

Behind the statistics lie many horrifying incidents of assault and abuse of shop workers. I recently met two brave women who work for Asda at two different stores. One of them had been the victim of an armed robbery, in which a gun was held to her head, and the other had been attacked with an axe. Since the attacks, they both dread going to work every day.

In my own constituency of Stockport there was a spate of 19 armed robberies of late-night shops and off-licences in March. In April there was an awful case in which a woman shop worker suffered horrendous injuries when she was hit in the face with a hammer for four bottles of vermouth and a few packets of cigarettes.

Sixty per cent of violent incidents occur when staff attempt to detain criminals or to protect property from theft. Many shop workers are faced with that dilemma every day, and there are many cases of traumatised workers leaving their jobs.

Who are the perpetrators?

To deal with shoplifting effectively we must understand the link between it and other criminal activities, such as large-scale organised crime. A recent report by the Centre for Retail Research found that the biggest shoplifters are men who are “older, more organised and are often stealing higher value goods to order which explodes the myth of store theft being a largely opportunistic and ‘harmless’ offence”.

Much shop theft is done by people who are desperate for cash to buy drugs or alcohol. Indeed, a Home Office report revealed that people who commit retail theft are 85 per cent likely to be drug users and to live “chaotic” lifestyles.

Shoplifting has also been linked to gun crime and terrorism. A report on Operation Trident, which investigated shootings within the Afro-Caribbean community, said that a generation of young people had moved from shoplifting to gun crime within six years.

There have also been many reports of terrorists raising funds through organised shoplifting. So, far from being a trivial offence, shoplifting may be a visible sign of a shoplifter’s more extensive criminal activity or of his or her link to organised crime. It is hardly surprising; therefore, that many shop workers are assaulted, because they often have to challenge people who are not novices in crime.

On the spot fines

If sentencing policy is to be effective in preventing retail crime, it is vital that first offences are treated appropriately. I am very concerned about the misuse of on-the-spot fines or Fixed Penalty Notices for Disorder. When the scope of PNDs was extended to include shop theft offences in 2004, many people expressed concern that thieving from shops was being put on the same level as parking offences or dropping litter.

PNDs were intended to be used in cases of the theft of goods worth less than £200, and they were not meant to be used for repeat offenders. Victims’ views were also meant to be taken into account when deciding whether to use PNDs instead of prosecuting. More importantly, they were meant for first offenders, although the length of time since any previous offence could be taken into account. The idea was that they would provide a quick penalty for shoplifting and would discourage further offences.

But, regrettably, they seem to have been much misused. Businesses claim that some offenders collect notices like parking tickets.

The British Retail Consortium has dozens of examples in which police guidance on PNDs has been flouted, including:

• cases in which multiple PNDs have been issued to persistent offenders, sometimes on the same day

• two cases in which PNDs were issued to offenders wearing electronic tags, one of whom was a previous employee and was on parole.

• the issuing of PNDs to aggressive and disorderly individuals and to those using foil bags, indicating that the offence was planned. (A foil bag is lined with layers of aluminium foil, which enables the carrier to shoplift because it blocks out store sensors.)

• PNDs have also been issued in cases involving goods worth well in excess of the recommended £100 limit and even in excess of the £200 exceptional circumstances limit.

• In other cases, PNDs have been issued without the victim’s consent.

Victims should not be pressurised into accepting the issuing of a PND simply because it makes life easier for the police. A PND disposal removes the possibility of the criminal court awarding a compensation order in the victims favour.

A recent survey of solicitors for BBC Radio 4’s “Law in Action” programme found that some people racked up as many as five fixed penalty notices in a matter of months without getting a criminal record.

Parliamentary figures show that in 2004 only 2,072 PNDs were issued for shop theft. In 2005, the number leapt tenfold to 21,997. In the first six months of last year, the number was 16,807; new figures from the House of Commons Library suggest that it will rise to 37,463 for the whole of 2006.

That could mean that PNDs have been effective and that more shoplifters are being caught, but it could equally indicate a level of abuse and that PNDs are being handed out like confetti.

Even if we accept that PNDs are being issued legitimately to first-time shoplifters, it is staggering that only 41.2 per cent of related fines are paid.

There is no national system for recording PNDs—the figures are collected by individual police forces—so it is not possible to say how many have been given to repeat offenders. Police forces are supposed to record the issuing of PNDs on the police national computer, but there is evidence that that does not always happen.

Police officers are not supposed to give on-the-spot fines to drug users. If a drug offender is not identified and is given a PND, they stand no chance of receiving treatment or coming off drugs. An offender who is given a PND will not be drug-tested on the scene and so probably will not be identified. That is important, because the reason that people are tested on arrest is to identify underlying problems and to stop the spiral of crime.

Commons Debate

To highlight my concerns about sentencing and misuse of on-the-spot fines, I held a Commons adjournment debate on Sentencing Policy and Retail Crime. I outlined cases of misuse of PNDs and explained that the proposal from the Sentencing Advisory Panel to remove or cap custodial sentences for shop theft at 16 weeks for even the most persistent offenders had caused much anxiety among businesses, especially when combined with the increased use of PNDs.

Helpfully, David Hanson, the Justice Minister, confirmed during the debate, that he believes that the full range of sanctions under the criminal justice system should remain available. That includes PNDs, antisocial behaviour orders, drug treatment orders and custodial sentences. The Sentencing Guidelines Council is due to publish fresh guidelines early next year.

I also called for and won a pledge from the minister that the government would undertake a thorough review of the use of PNDs and payment rates. The minister said he was aware of the claims of inappropriate use by some police forces for repeated and prolific shoplifting and those with drug and alcohol problems. The review is currently underway and we eagerly await its outcome.

The minister also agreed that a 24 hour national facility for the police to check for previous PND issue notices was necessary. The Home Office hopes that a national PND database will be up and running from 2009 to allow forces to track individuals. Roll out of the project will begin in March 2008.

There is anecdotal evidence that criminals are moving into retail crime because there is less risk and penalties are lower, making retail premises more attractive to thieves than domestic properties such as houses and cars.

Nobody wants a situation in which the retail environment is increasingly seen by thieves as a place where they can act with impunity. Preventing crime and antisocial behaviour in and around stores and shopping centres is vital for the regeneration and strengthening of our communities and for the well-being of shop workers, owners and customers alike.