A Proposed New Court Order to Tackle Shop Theft

Yesterday, on the social media network formerly known as Twitter, I posted a suggestion that some sort of special order was needed to tackle prolific shop thieves.

I've been giving a bit more thought to my new proposed retail anti-theft order (RATO). With a general election looming on the horizon, it's even possible that the powers that be might take an interest in the suggestion!

As things currently stand, a shop thief is pretty unlikely to receive a custodial sentence for an unsophisticated theft (e.g. grab and run) unless the value of the goods taken is very high.

There is currently no specific order to deter and prevent the commission of retail theft. Criminal behaviour orders are not always appropriate, as they can only be imposed if the court is satisfied that the offending behaviour of an individual has caused the harassment, alarm or distress of another. In most cases of shop theft the offender will breeze into a store, take what they want, and then breeze out again - there will be very little interaction with other people, if any at all.

My new proposed RATO would be suitable for those cases of shop theft where a CBO was unavailable.

Whenever the court imposes an order it needs to balance the rights of the offender against those of the public at large, which includes retailers in this case. For that reason, the new RATO could only be imposed on an offender who had a demonstrable history of shop theft.

The lawyers would thrash out the finer details, but I was thinking something along the lines of an offender becoming eligible for a RATO if they were convicted of three relevant offences within the space of a year. The financial value of those thefts would be largely irrelevant, as the propensity towards shop theft would have been demonstrated either way.

As in the case of football banning orders, which I wrote about the other day, the court would be obliged to make a RATO alongside the third relevant conviction unless it was of the opinion, having considered the circumstances of the offender and history of offences, that it was unjust in all the circumstances to do so. Again, the court would be obliged to explain any decision not to impose a RATO.

In making a RATO the court could impose any requirements or prohibitions it deemed necessary to prevent the commission of retail theft. This could include requirements along the following lines:

• On entering a retail premises, notify a member of staff, at the earliest opportunity, that they are subject to a RATO and not to touch any item on display or otherwise for sale unless they have made such a notification;
• Once inside the retail premises, show identification if required to by a member of staff;
• Once inside the retail premises, immediately leave if required to by a member of staff;
• In relation to an open stall, serving table, serving hatch etc, not to touch any item on display or otherwise for sale unless they have informed a member of staff that they are subject to a RATO;
• On entering a retail premises or approaching any open stall, serving table, serving hatch etc. removing any covering to their face and head unless worn for an approved medical or religious purpose;
• Excluding the offender from certain named retail premises, shopping centres, markets or arcades etc.

Some of those might seem a bit stringent, but remember that the offender would be on their third-strike by this point - they have continued with their offending behaviour despite knowing a RATO could be made.

As always, the court should be mindful of how reasonable and proportionate the conditions of the order are relative to the risk of offending they are intended to address. A thief who steals from any shop will need stricter conditions than one who only steals from Harrods.

A RATO would be made for a minimum period of 2 years. As long as no further relevant offences were committed, the offender could apply to have the order discharged after 2/3 of its duration. If further relevant offences were committed, then the court could extend the order by up to 12 months for each one.

As teenage delinquent Mizzy will undoubtedly discover shortly, breaching a CBO is a very serious offence and likely to result in a custodial sentence. Breaching a RATO would also be viewed as a very serious offence, which would attract a maximum sentence of 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

I really do think it's time to tip the balance more in favour of the retailers, which I hope could be achieved through an order like this.