British Retail Consortium Policy on Theft from a Shop - Case Study Example

Policy Issues in the Criminal Justice System: British Retail Consortium Policy on Theft from a shop   This is a response to the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s draft policy on sentencing cases of theft from a shop. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Report here is a response to Sentencing Guidelines Council’s draft policy and deals on sentencing cases of theft from a shop. The organization represented here is British Retail Consortium and policy issues given here by Sentencing Guideline Council’s draft policy are on the criminal justice system and how the theft from a shop would be dealt with. In the first instance I’ll describe the organization, the British Retail consortium and explain the role of the organization and my role as representative of the organization. I’ll also claim on my own expertise and the organization’s expertise and would provide a response to the draft policy guidelines as part of the consultation. In the first section of the report I will also summarize not just the role and approach of the consortium I represent but also the organization’s response to the overall consultation. DESCRIPTION: To describe the British Retail Consortium, an introduction of the organization would be based on what is given on the website of British retail consortium. It is one of the leading associations representing all kinds of retailers from all parts of Britain. According to the website, ‘The British Retail Consortium is the lead trade association representing the whole range of retailers, from the large multiples and department stores through to independents, selling a wide selection of products through centre of town, out of town, rural and virtual stores’ (brc.org, 2008). The mission statement of the company focuses on the vision and mission of the company that aims at creating a vibrant and sustainable retail industry and also defends the retailers’ interests. Improving retail services in general and providing advice and other kind of help services to the retailers are also equally important. The actual mission and vision of the organization as available on the organization website is given here: from brc.org, 2008 OUR VISION To work with our members to create a vibrant and sustainable retail industry for the future. OUR MISSION To make life easier for our members by: - Campaigning to promote and defend retailers interests - Advising retailers of threats and opportunities to their business - Improving the perceptions of retailing in the UK - Offering members a range of services and products which add value to their business The British Retail Consortium also works closely with governments on campaigning and policy issues and maintains constructive relationships with governmental departments. The BRC has strong ties with governmental and non-governmental organizations including the DFID, the Department of Health, Revenue and Customs, Home Office, Health and Safety Executive as well as several non governmental organizations (BRC.org, 2008). The Policy Action Group of the BRC provides responses to government on policies that would be burdens to the retail sector and recommends changes for smoother working of public and private sector. BRC undertakes regular consultation responses and policy consultation is an essential part of BRC’s wide ranging activities. The Policy Action Group of the British Retail Consortium has been especially established to tackle responses and consultations with Government departments and this particular exercise on policy appraisal of the Criminal Justice System falls within BRC’s responsibilities on providing the right kind of consultation and responses to policies dealing with sentencing cases of theft from a shop. CONSULTATION RESPONSE: The consultation response to the policy on theft from a shop that the British Retail Consortium provides for the Criminal Justice System would be aimed at maintaining the best interests of the consumers, retailers from all sectors, the government, the sentencing guidelines council and the criminal justice department. According to policy statements, the ‘offence category of theft from a shop is a form of theft that is the largest category of sentenced theft cases and involves more sentenced cases than any other either-way offence’. The offence and subsequent guideline is as follows – Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 provides that theft occurs where a person “dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.” The offence could thus be tried and has a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment on indictment and six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both, summarily. The maximum sentence on summary conviction will increase to 12 months imprisonment on the implementation of sections 154 and 282 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This consultation paper considers only ‘customer’ theft from retail shops and stores, commonly called “shoplifting”. Providing a brief background to this consultation response, in 2004/5, the police recorded 280,461 offences of theft from a shop. Large scale commercial and personal victimization have been reported in a survey of around 4,000 retailers and it was found from the survey that theft from a shop by customers, is the most common type of crime suffered by retailers, and was experienced by 43% of retailers. Shoplifting or theft by customers is more experienced by larger establishments (those with 50 or more employees) than smaller establishments. 58% of retailers have reported experiencing at least six occasions of theft, and these retailers also face the largest incidence of theft (99%). Large high street stores, chain stores, indoor shopping centre stores and local corner shops were most likely to experience customer theft and incidence of ‘shoplifting’. However the survey also showed that very few offences of theft from a shop are dealt with by the police and even fewer by a court. It estimated that only 3% of incidents of theft from a shop are reported to the police and only 1% results in a court cases or any form of conviction. The majority of these cases, therefore, go unreported or undetected either because offenders are not caught or because retailers choose not to pursue a criminal prosecution because these are considered too trivial or because retailers do not want to grow through the hassle of criminal prosecution. Yet considering that there have been 280,461 offences however minor in one year alone, one cannot overlook the extent or seriousness of the problem (SCG, 2004). The fact that only 3% of the cases are reported makes the situation even worse as the small offences are adding up to large numbers resulting in significant total impact. So the offence of shoplifting or customer theft is definitely a large scale problem and if the offender is accompanied by a child, there are even serious ethical issues that come into play. An offender with children engaged in shoplifting may actually teach children the practice of theft which results in more anti socials and irresponsible citizens and could be considered as a problem of sufficient impact. These are issues of social responsibility, ethics and justice. The seriousness of the offence would increase doubly if some form of force or threat has been used by the offender even if there may not be any separate assault charge filed against the offender. The Crown Prosecution Service would charge the offender and severe penalty might be given. The use of force and violence in stealing goods from a supermarket or store would be a criminal act. For sentencing purposes the value of the goods stolen would also be a relevant factor in examining the extent to which the offender has been guilty and the amount of loss to the store or retailer. The value of the goods stolen provide an estimate of losses and combined losses from all goods stolen during a particular year would provide the composite loss of the retail industry and retailers and actually provide a value or numbers in terms of losses in dollars that could reach up to staggering millions. Although the shoplifter may look considerably harmless and non frightening, the combined costs of such offences to the economy would be understood considering the totality of retail theft. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) has estimated total costs to the UK retail sector at £750 million in 2002 (BRC, 2008/2002). However for sentencing purposes the value of the goods stolen may not be too significant in individual cases although stealing of certain goods from smaller stores may have significant impact on the profits or earnings of smaller retailers. If the offence is carried out by a group or a gang, the offence would be considered as armed robbery or burglary carried out with almost professional planning and the seriousness of the offence would rise significantly in such cases. The planning of such theft could imply serious consequences for other retailers and supermarkets as well as this could involve larger groups or a chain of criminals who could also have terrorist connections. Apart from this, armed robbery in groups may target on high value goods and prepare to sell them to international markets which increase the seriousness of the crime as it involves smuggling, force/threat and robbery at the same time. The conviction and probe of this sort of crime will be large scale and may even require higher level probe or international collaboration. High levels of loss, damage to property, vandalism are also considered serous offences as are offences which involve stealing goods worth above £200. If any offence is committed by homeless or poor actually unable to buy the goods or items in question, the seriousness of the offence would be diminished and such offenders could still be reported but placed under corrective behavioral rehabilitation or the offender could be placed under supervision of a charity. However in most case, retailers will not generally prosecute a homeless or poor person who engaged in petty theft due to helplessness or personal circumstances. Desperation or need is however considered as a mitigating factor if the offender has circumstances of homelessness or poverty although mitigation does not apply for drug or alcohol related needs (SCG, 2004). Also a first time offender is given a conditional discharge or fine if pleads not guilty. Section 152(2) of the CJA 2003 (Criminal Justice Act) provides that a custodial sentence should not be imposed unless the court considers the offence to be so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified (CJA, 2003). A clean record would be the best route to personal mitigation as a person with criminal record may be considered a greater offender as previous criminal behavior largely and negative affects a person’s chance for mitigation and increases seriousness of the offence (SCG, 2004). If a criminal has not responded positively from previous sentences and have continued to embark on criminal behavior, he or she is more likely to be tried for shoplifting and his previous criminal record would aggravate the offence of theft from a shop as a negative ‘halo’ effect from the past always tend to create present impressions. The final question would be whether thieves or shoplifters are discriminated on the basis of their age, gender, disability, race or ethnicity and whether a particular ethnic group or people of certain ages would be in a disadvantageous position and considered more of a nuisance than other groups. Thus these raise certain questions and issues like are blacks or Hispanics discriminated against and caught for theft? Are young people below 30 more likely to be perceived as shoplifters than older people? The findings of the panel however show no such connection between ethnicity and offences or trail for offences. In one related survey, almost half of offences (48%) were committed by offenders aged 18-28 years old and the average age of offenders has been found at 31. CONCLUSION: Finally, in consultation of the document provided by the Criminal Justice System, and the Sentencing Guideline Council’s draft policy, it can be summarized that the Criminal Justice Act would be implemented in certain cases although for minor offences related to desperation or need, mitigation could be practiced. Highlighting the greater and composite impact of such petty thefts and robbery within the retail sector, it is urged that more retailers should notify the police to bring down the number of theft cases and better methods of security should be provided to retailers so that there is a significant decrease in the number of such cases consequently decreasing the negative effect on the economy. Bibliography Thomas, D. Principles of Sentencing, 1979. Criminal Justice Act ,2003 SGC guideline: Overarching Principles: Seriousness, published December 2004. The full guideline is available at www.sentencingguidelines.gov.uk Website on British Retail Consortium www.brc.org.uk accessed 2008-01-14 Read More