Professor Emmeline Taylor, Professor of Criminology, School of Policy and Global Affairs, City St George’s, University of London — Written evidence (TSL0009)   

It was an honour and a privilege to be invited to provide oral evidence to the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee on the 3rd of September 2024. The Chair asked for me to provide additional evidence and clarification on several key points which I have outlined below:

The Chair asked if I could clarify the distinction between "low value" shoplifting (where the value of the goods are less than £200) and theft from a shop where the value of goods exceed £200.

Theft is defined by Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. “Shoplifting” is the term used by the Home Office and the police to record theft (regardless of value) from a shop to distinguish it from other types of theft and its location (e.g. theft from a vehicle). Different rules for prosecuting what is termed “low-value shoplifting” (that is theft from a shop of goods valued at under £200) were introduced under Section 176 the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which determined it to be a summary-only offence.

• If the goods are worth less than £200, the maximum sentence is six months’ custody.
• If the goods are worth more than £200, the maximum sentence is seven years’ custody.[1]

The legislation was introduced with the intention of creating a more efficient procedure for defendants who were likely to plead guilty.[2] Offences could be considered for police-led prosecution rather than referring them to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) thus freeing up police, CPS and court time. However, in the period since the introduction of S176 there has been a decline in all types of punishments for shop thieves including penalty notices, cautions and the number of offenders pursued in the courts. For example, there has been a 98% reduction in the number of penalty notices issued to shop thieves in the year to March 2024 (n=431) compared to the same period a decade ago (19,419).[3] It has been suggested that the introduction of “low-value shoplifting” inadvertently led to a widespread withdrawal of enforcement activity for theft of goods of a value less than £200 (although other factors will have coalesced with the legislative change).

The Chair asked if I could provide some more information on schemes and partnerships which have proven successful from an international perspective e.g. the INFORM Consumers Act, and whether there are international experiences from which the UK can learn.

There are examples of legislation and police operational practices from other countries, and locally, that can provide possible lessons. In the United States, the Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces for Consumers Act, known as the ‘INFORM Consumers Act’, is a federal law that came into effect in June 2023 and requires e-commerce marketplaces to collect, verify and disclose identifying information about high-volume third-party sellers.[4] The law makes it harder for those knowingly selling stolen goods to operate in a relatively anonymous and risk-free space. In addition, there are many examples of policing operations that seek to target prolific / repeat offenders and/or disrupt the onward sale of stolen goods. For example, South Australia’s Operation Measure and, closer to home, Nottinghamshire Police’s Operation Motivation, show great promise although neither have been formally evaluated. More broadly on this point, disrupting the trade of stolen goods would be a worthwhile focus to begin to deny the benefit that organised retail criminals and local prolific offenders derive from their criminal activities.

The Chair invited me to provide my thoughts on what the Committee should recommend at the conclusion of the inquiry. I have synthesised these below.

The recommendations that I have made over several years have been published in multiple reports including It’s Not Part of the Job[5] and Stealing with Impunity[6]. Some of those recommendations have been supported by the previous government and, more recently, committed to in the Kings Speech (e.g. introducing a standalone offence for attacking a shopworker while performing their duties and repealing Section 176 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act). I have outlined four outstanding key recommendations below but first I have taken the liberty of outlining a possible structure to visualise some of the recommendations and how they interlink. 

1. Establish a National Retail Crime Intelligence Bureau

Chronic under reporting of shop theft frustrates the ability to formulate effective strategic action. Yet the sheer scale of criminal activity in the retail sector undermines any realistic prospect of reporting and recording all incidents. Furthermore, if the majority of incidents were indeed reported, it would potentially quadruple police recorded crime. Replicating an already existing, tried and tested model developed for another high-volume crime type - fraud - and applying it to retail crime could enable the collation and analysis of multiple data sources and provide actionable intelligence on repeat, prolific and organised offenders. A national intelligence bureau would avoid overwhelming the police with the high-volume of shop theft incidents and provide instead for the targeting of resource to those with ‘solvability factors’—in essence the bureau would establish whether there is a realistic prospect of identifying the offender before passing to the police. The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and Action Fraud are funded by the Home Office. Given the current fiscal context, it is suggested that options to fund the RCIB (and associated functions) are explored and could include a combination of sources including retailers (it is notable that retailers have been willing to financially support policing operations such as the retail strand of Opal), Safer Streets funds, proceeds of crime funds, money previously used to fund the Home Office Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS), and academic research councils.  

2. Formalise structures to support Business Crime Reduction Partnerships (BCRPs)

A Business Crime Reduction Partnership (BCRP) is a subscription-based, business-led, non-profit making action group working with police and the local authority to tackle and reduce crime and disorder affecting businesses. They have huge potential to drive communication and collaboration between the police, local businesses and local authorities on crime-related issues that directly impact on business as well as the surrounding areas more broadly. Funding remains an issue for the majority of standalone BCRPs (i.e. those that are not part of or funded by Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)) and this undermines their ability to operate strategically and undertake long-term planning. Suggestions for more sustainable funding models for BCRPs include the proceeds of crime funds (POCA), the commissioning of service delivery by the local authority in receipt of national government funding, and Police and Crime Commissioners. It is recommended that in reference to work already undertaken[7] and in the context of the Community Safety Partnerships Review[8], the potential of BCRPs to play a more central role in tackling local criminal behaviour (including antisocial behaviour) be explored. 

3. Appoint an Independent Advisor / Oversight Board and map existing provision to tackle retail crime.

There is currently a large amount of activity at national and local level to tackle the rise in retail crime and associated offending. There are also many police and industry groups focusing on retail crime, including the National Business Crime Centre, Opal (with the “Pegasus” strand focusing on organised retail crime), Business Crime Reduction Partnerships (BCRPs) and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). It is recommended that the Home Office/Ministry of Justice appoint an Independent Advisor to support delivery of the strategies relating to business crime, ensure that the objectives in the Retail Crime Action Plan are first measurable, and second, upheld, assist in the coordination of efforts at national level to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in and around shops, influence the development of evidence-based policy, and continue to improve the criminal justice system’s response to retail crime and associated offending activity, in all its manifestations. The landscape of activity is complex and there runs the risk of overlapping and competing activity, whereas other important activity might fall through the gaps. It is suggested that the Oversight Board first conduct a mapping exercise of existing provision to identify potential duplication and gaps. There is also a notable lack of evidence of ‘what works’ to tackle shop theft both from a prevention and enforcement perspective e.g. the relative effectiveness of Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs), electronic monitoring, custody etc. or how technology could be used and to what effect (e.g. facial recognition).

4. Target the stolen goods markets and criminal exploitation

The onward sale of stolen goods has evolved with the use of online marketplaces. Taking inspiration from other countries that have regulated online marketplaces (e.g., the INFORM Consumers Act in the USA), regulations should be considered to make it harder for those knowingly selling stolen goods to operate anonymously. This could include a requirement for online marketplaces to collect, verify and disclose identifying information about high-volume third-party sellers. Focusing the lens on those who sell on or directly profit from the onward sale of stolen goods (often a different individual to the person stealing) could enable ethe disruption of those markets. 

1 October 2024