Ten years ago the BRC launched an ongoing campaign to persuade the Home Office and the police to treat shoplifting as a serious crime, with real victims. Have we succeeded?
The evidence is ambiguous. Within the Home Office, perceptions of retail crime have changed to some extent. A few weeks ago the minister who deals with retail crime - Vernon Coaker - told the BRC's annual crime conference that his department really does regard this as a very important issue. That's good, because at times in the past the Home Office's interest in the problem has been in doubt. Or, as last year, when Coaker's predecessor claimed that most of the trends highlighted in our annual survey were going "in the right direction", when they obviously weren't.
The main problem with crime statistics generally, of course, is that their credibility depends on the willingness of retailers to report every known offence. Regrettably, this often does not happen. On average only one in five incidents are reported to the police and the number of offences that are actually prosecuted through the courts is tiny.
Many incidents are not even recorded at store level. So variations in recording practice by one or two big retailers can affect the overall picture quite significantly. For example, last year there was an apparent decline in reported levels of verbal abuse, threats and violent assaults on retail staff.
Is this good news? Yes, but it could be that retail staff are becoming more used to anti-social behaviour and are now only bothering to record the more serious instances.
Complaints from our members about the lack of police interest in retail crime at local level have certainly not diminished, which probably suggests that even fewer incidents are now being reported.
The biggest single challenge we face is the still commonly encountered belief that retail crime is a trivial offence which, in financial terms, is a mere pinprick compared with the vast profits retailers make.
The reality, of course, is very different. Leaving aside the £8bn or so in sales that our members have lost through theft over the past six years, plus the £4bn they have invested in crime prevention and detection measures, the personal injuries and traumas suffered by retail staff on the receiving end of assaults cannot be dismissed as of little consequence.
Retail crime is known to be the first step to more serious offences. It's also linked to drug addiction. As such it reflects broader and equally worrying trends in society. Which brings us to the issue of deterrence. The extension of Penalty Notices for Disorder to cover first-time shoplifters two years ago appears to have had little effect, particularly as some local police forces either don't use them or don't follow Home Office guidelines when they do. And they don't address the real problem - the serial offender who has not been deterred by the fines or community sentences imposed.
A custodial sentence is likely only in those cases where a serial offender has physically assaulted someone. Even this infrequently used penalty will be taken off the board if the Sentencing Advisory Panel has its way. One option it proposes in a consultative document would make it impossible for a prison sentence to be imposed on any shop thief.
Needless to say, we are strongly opposing this suggestion. We need tougher penalties to deter both first-time and repeat offenders, who are responsible for the bulk of reported incidents.
Our campaign continues.
The evidence is ambiguous. Within the Home Office, perceptions of retail crime have changed to some extent. A few weeks ago the minister who deals with retail crime - Vernon Coaker - told the BRC's annual crime conference that his department really does regard this as a very important issue. That's good, because at times in the past the Home Office's interest in the problem has been in doubt. Or, as last year, when Coaker's predecessor claimed that most of the trends highlighted in our annual survey were going "in the right direction", when they obviously weren't.
The main problem with crime statistics generally, of course, is that their credibility depends on the willingness of retailers to report every known offence. Regrettably, this often does not happen. On average only one in five incidents are reported to the police and the number of offences that are actually prosecuted through the courts is tiny.
Many incidents are not even recorded at store level. So variations in recording practice by one or two big retailers can affect the overall picture quite significantly. For example, last year there was an apparent decline in reported levels of verbal abuse, threats and violent assaults on retail staff.
Is this good news? Yes, but it could be that retail staff are becoming more used to anti-social behaviour and are now only bothering to record the more serious instances.
Complaints from our members about the lack of police interest in retail crime at local level have certainly not diminished, which probably suggests that even fewer incidents are now being reported.
The biggest single challenge we face is the still commonly encountered belief that retail crime is a trivial offence which, in financial terms, is a mere pinprick compared with the vast profits retailers make.
The reality, of course, is very different. Leaving aside the £8bn or so in sales that our members have lost through theft over the past six years, plus the £4bn they have invested in crime prevention and detection measures, the personal injuries and traumas suffered by retail staff on the receiving end of assaults cannot be dismissed as of little consequence.
Retail crime is known to be the first step to more serious offences. It's also linked to drug addiction. As such it reflects broader and equally worrying trends in society. Which brings us to the issue of deterrence. The extension of Penalty Notices for Disorder to cover first-time shoplifters two years ago appears to have had little effect, particularly as some local police forces either don't use them or don't follow Home Office guidelines when they do. And they don't address the real problem - the serial offender who has not been deterred by the fines or community sentences imposed.
A custodial sentence is likely only in those cases where a serial offender has physically assaulted someone. Even this infrequently used penalty will be taken off the board if the Sentencing Advisory Panel has its way. One option it proposes in a consultative document would make it impossible for a prison sentence to be imposed on any shop thief.
Needless to say, we are strongly opposing this suggestion. We need tougher penalties to deter both first-time and repeat offenders, who are responsible for the bulk of reported incidents.
Our campaign continues.
No comments yet