Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Written evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores (ASB 34)

Low Value Shop Lifting Clause 133 – Amendments

ACS (the Association of Convenience Stores) represents 33,500 local shops across the country in the Co-operative, Spar, Costcutter, Nisa Retail and thousands of independent retailers. Shop theft is the largest operational challenged faced by convenience retailers.

Industry and Government statistics show that shop theft is the highest volume crime committed against the UK retail and it is estimated to account for 28% [1] of the cost of all retail crime. Despite the high volume and wide ranging impact that shop theft has on local shops and the wider retail sector the Home Office failed to consult on this clause.

ACS supports three changes to Clause 133 ‘Low Value Shop Theft’:

Repeat Offenders:

Prolific and repeat offenders account for a large proportion of shop theft and should be held accountable in Court. The £200 threshold should not be extended to any individual that has already received a police caution or penalty notice for disorder for shop theft.

£200 Threshold:

The impact or severity of shop theft should not be defined in monetary value. Setting a high threshold of £200 would codify discrimination against businesses selling groceries and other everyday goods (such as convenience stores) from high end fashion and electrical retailers. It will also downgrade the vast majority of offences, which are for goods of a lesser value than £200 [2] . The threshold should be dropped to £100 this would be closer to the median amount of value of goods stolen (£40).

Shop Theft not ‘Shoplifting’:

The term ‘shoplifting’ is disliked by retailers as it portrays the idea that theft from their business is less serious and victimless. Shop theft is a very serious and damaging offence and should be recognised as theft.

AMENDMENT 114 – Repeat Offenders

The clause intends to prevent persistent offenders from benefiting from the £200 threshold and not having to attend court. Offenders are more likely to be charged with individual offences not successive offences, therefore a mechanism must be in place to ensure persistent offenders do not benefit from the very high £200 threshold.

If an offender has a previous caution or penalty notice for disorder for shop theft it is appropriate for interventions to be made by the courts to prevent them from reoffending.

Clause 133, Subsection 22A 3, Page 103, line 37, at end insert -

(d) the person accused has not received a Simple Caution, Conditional Caution or Penalty Notice for Disorder for a previous shoplifting offence.

AMENDMENT 113 – Redefining £100

The median amount of goods taken in the 2006 study used to justify this clause was £40. Only 23% of the recorded incidents in the survey were between £100 and £200. Dropping the threshold £100 would ensure that the minority of high level offence above £100 are still heard in court.

Shoplifting £200 worth of stock from a convenience or supermarket would require significant and effort, and multiple visits. The threshold should be reduced to reflect the low value nature of the majority or shop theft incidents.

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A, Page 103, line 31, leave out ‘£200’ and insert ‘£100’

Shop theft not ‘shoplifting’

ACS would also support amendments to change the term ‘Shoplifting’ as currently referenced in the Bill to "shop theft". ACS understands that the term shoplifting has been used because of inclusion in other legislation but believe it should be changed because of the perception it gives that shop theft is not a serious offence.

Shop Theft is serious and does have a damaging affect on a business’s income and can leave staff and retailers feeling vulnerable. Calling it ‘shoplifting’ lowers the perception that shop theft is a serious offence that will be dealt with appropriately.

Clause 133, Page vii, Part 12: Criminal Justice and Court Fees, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Page 103, line 14, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A, Page 103, line 19, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (3), Page 103, line 20, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (2), Page 103, line 21, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (2), Page 103, line 29, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (3c), Page 103, line 36, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (4b), Page 103, line 42, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (5), Page 104, line 1, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (6), Page 104, line 9, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (6), Page 104, line 12, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (7), Page 104, line 13, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (3) 22A (7), Page 104, line 15, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (5b), Page 104, line 30, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (6a), Page 104, line 34, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

Clause 133, Subsection (6b), Page 104, line 37, leave out ‘Shoplifting’ and insert ‘Shop Theft’

July 2013