Ann Coffey

|

SENTENCING POLICY AND RETAIL CRIME

First of all, I would like to explode some common myths about shop theft. There is a view that shoplifting is a “petty” or “victimless” crime - just ordinary people taking a few bits off the shelves on impulse. It’s not really criminal behaviour and shop lifters are not really criminals.
 
But this is by no means the entire picture as I will explain shortly.

We must all be concerned that shop thefts are increasing. There were 296,044 recorded by police in 2005/6 - up by over 14,200 on the previous year. Official figures show that shop theft has increased by one per cent between 2000 and 2006.

However, data collected by the British Retail Consortium indicates an increase of 70 per cent over the same period. This huge discrepancy could be down to underreporting to police.

We should be very concerned that in the last year  there were 10,000 physical assaults on shop workers and 7,000 of those were linked to shoplifting.

VICTIMS

Behind these statistics lie some horrifying incidents of assault and abuse of shop workers. I recently met two very brave ASDA women workers. One had been the victim of an armed robbery and had had a gun held to her head and the other had been attacked with an axe. Since the attacks they have felt frightened going to work every day.

In my constituency, the local paper the Stockport Express, reported in March that there had been a spate of 19 armed robberies on late night shops and off licences and in April we had the awful case of a woman shop worker who suffered horrendous injuries when she was hit in the face with a hammer - for four bottles of vermouth and a few packets of cigarettes.
:
Other Stockport cases recently reported to USDAW, the shop workers union, include: 

• A youth who attacked a shop manager when he was challenged about stealing beer. The deputy manager went to assist but the youth broke free and produced a hypodermic syringe saying he had Aids and started chasing after members of staff. He eventually escaped.

• A woman was confronted about stealing magazines. She said she was going to pay for them but was told to leave the store and not return. She became abusive and threatened to come back and stab the sales assistant later.
Sixty per cent of violent incidents occur when staff attempt to detain criminals or protect property from theft. Many shop workers have this dilemma every day and there are many cases of traumatised workers leaving their jobs.

WHO ARE THE SHOPLIFTERS?

It is important, in order to deal with shoplifting that we understand the link between it and other criminal activities, including organised crime.

Much shop theft is done by people desperate for cash for drugs or alcohol. A Home Office report entitled “Strengthening powers to tackle anti-social behaviour” said that someone committing retail theft is 85 per cent likely to be a drug user and to be living a “chaotic lifestyle”.

And a report by the Centre for Retail research entitled “Biggest shoplifters are men,” said shoplifters are older, more organized and stealing expensive goods to order “which explodes the myth of shop theft being a young, opportunistic and “harmless” offence.

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 in six years. There have also been many reports of terrorists using organised shoplifting to raise funds.

The point I am making here, is that far from being a trivial offence shoplifting can be a visible sign of something more extensive in terms of the shoplifter’s criminal activity and his or her links to organised crime. So it is hardly surprising that many shop workers are assaulted because they often have to challenge people who are not novices in crime. 
It is important if our sentencing policy is to be effective in preventing retail crime that there is recognition that shoplifting is not the victimless petty crime that it is portrayed to be and that shoplifters are often hardened criminals.

It is also important that the sentencing policy takes account of the fact that people may start off as shop lifters but end up involved in more criminal activities. That is why it is vital that their first offence is treated appropriately.

FIXED PENALTY NOTICES

This brings me onto fixed penalty notices.

Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) were extended to include shop offences in 2004. Many people expressed concern that shop theft was being trivialised and put on a level with a parking fine or dropping litter
The intention was that they would only be used for theft of goods worth less than £200; that they would not be used against repeat offenders and that the views of the victims would be taken into account when deciding to use a PND rather than to prosecute.

More importantly they were supposed to be issued to first time offenders. However, the length of time that has passed since any previous offence can be taken into account.

The idea is that they provide a quick penalty for a shop lifting and will discourage further offences.
 
Regrettably, there appears to have been much misuse of PNDs with businesses claiming that some offenders are collecting several notices “like parking tickets”.

Police officers are not supposed to give on-the-spot fines to drug users but if a drug offender is not identified and is given a PND then that person stands no chance of receiving treatment programmes and of coming off drugs because they will not be drug tested on the scene. This is an important point because the reason people are tested an arrest is to identify the underlying problems and stop the spiral of crime.

While I can see that PNDs have a part to play in the overall system, I remain concerned about their effectiveness and the consistency of their use.

The British Retail Consortium have dozens of examples of police guidance on PNDs being flaunted, including:

*Multiple PND’s issued to persistent offenders, sometimes in the same day

*PNDs even being issued to two offenders wearing electronic tags, one of whom was also a previous employee on parole. This is a clear breach as PNDs should not be given to repeat offenders.

*Other cases include, PNDs issued to aggressive and disorderly individuals and those using foil bags, which indicates planning of the offence. For those who don’t know - a foil bag is lined with layers of aliminium foil to enable a person to shoplift as it blocks out the sensors at stores.
 
*PNDs being issued for goods well in excess of the £100 recommended amount and even the exceptional circumstance limit of £200 value

*And there are other examples of PNDs being issued without the victims consent. Victims should not be pressurized into accepting the issuing of a PND just because it makes life easier for the police. A PND disposal removes the possibility of the criminal court awarding a compensation order in favour of the victim.
 
A recent survey of solicitors for BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action programme found some of their “clients” had 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 thefts. In 2005 that leapt more than 10 fold to 21,997. In the first six months of last year the number was 16,807 and new figures from the House of Commons library suggest this will rise to 37,463 for the whole of 2006.

On the one hand, this could mean that PNDs have been very effective and more shoplifters are being caught or it could indicate quite a level of abuse and mean that PNDs are being handed out like confetti.

Even if we accept that PNDS are in fact being legitimately issued to first time shoplifters, it is staggering that only 41.2 per cent of the fines are actually paid.

There is currently no national system for recording PNDs but they are collected by individual police forces. This means that it is not possible to say how many PNDs have been given to repeat offenders. The local police are supposed to record the issuing of a PND on the Police National Computer. But there is some evidence that this does not always happen.

A report from the Office for Criminal Justice Reform in February 2006 confirms that there have been inconsistencies in issuing PNDs throughout the country.

It refers to the poor quality of mainly hand written notices and to problems with recording information on the Police National Computer. This makes it easier for an offender to get away with multiple offences by moving between police authorities.

Nationally the jury is still out about the effectiveness of PNDs as a deterrent for.discouraging first time shoplifters.  The recent announcement that police will be able to defer payment of PNDs for shop lifting for three to six months has been met with much consternation because of the message it sends out.

I do understand that this will only happen when the police feel the community will benefit from the shoplifter signing instead an Acceptable Behaviour Contract. And I welcome this because it will enable some attention being given to the underlying social problems. But it is important that people have confidence that this will be effective and this means confidence that PNDs are being used effectively

So, before this measure is introduced I would like to ask the minister to do a thorough evaluation of PNDs nationally. This would include information on:  the level of adherence to all guidelines including recording of offences; the number of people issued with PNDs that reoffend and what action is being taken against the high proportion of people who do not pay PNDs. I should like this evaluation to include evidence from key stakeholders.

There is anecdotal evidence of criminals moving into retail crime because the risk and penalties are lower.  I would like to see an assessment of whether, what is perceived by many as a weakening of punishments for shop theft offences, is making retail premises an even more attractive target to thieves, over domestic property such as houses and cars.

SENTENCING ADVISORY PROPOSALS
 
The Sentencing Advisory Panel is currently drafting advice to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is due to be published in the autumn.

The proposal to remove or cap custodial sentences for shop theft for even the most persistent offenders at 16 weeks has caused anxiety amongst businesses, especially when coupled with increased use of PNDs.

It would be helpful if the minister could confirm that the full range of sanctions will remain available under the criminal justice system from PNDs through to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, drug treatment orders and custodial sentences of whatever length the court believes appropriate.

CONCLUSION

This year the National Respect for Shop workers Day, organised by USDAW, will be held on Wednesday July 11 and the theme will be “Safer Shops: Safer community” – emphasising the important part that local shops play in the life of the community. A shop that is the target for persistent crime and anti-social behaviour is not a safeplace for staff or customers.

I believe that the community would benefit if decreasing retail crime, including shop lifting, was made a key police performance indicator and I would like the minister to consider doing this. This would encourage local Crime and Disorder Partnerships to use the full range of their resources and available measures to tackle retail crime.

I do congratulate the Government for introducing a wide range of measures which can be used to tackle retail crime including shop lifting but there needs to be better co-ordination at national and local level to spread good practice and improve consistency of approach.

Would the minister consider writing to all Crime and Disorder Partnerships to draw their attention to the measures that are available.

Because of all the concerns I have outlined today, I would also like to ask the minister to consider instituting a review of the current and future sentencing framework for retail crime involving all the major stakeholders, including USDAW, the British Retail Consortium and big employers such as Morrison’s and Tesco’s.

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