Shoplifting in England and Wales is on the rise year on year. Last year shoplifting offences were the highest since police recording began in 2003. But is prosecuting low-level shoplifting always the best way of stopping it? Does it get at the root causes of the issue? 

The government seems to think so. In a bid to tackle low-level shoplifting, they have legislated to ensure all shoplifting offences (including those of low value goods) are tried as an either way offence with a maximum custodial sentence of seven years. Previously, shoplifting cases where goods were at the value of £200 or less were summary-only offences, meaning it had to be tried in the magistrates’ courts.

However, after observing such cases in London’s magistrates’ courts, some of our courtwatchers weren’t so sure…

Courtwatchers noticed that many defendants coming before the magistrates’ courts for low level shoplifting were vulnerable, experiencing issues such as homelessness, drug or alcohol addiction, mental health and financial hardship. Often these vulnerabilities fuelled their shoplifting offences:

“Theft of wine and laundry pods from Tesco, value under £200. Defendant has no access to public funds. Is street homeless. Has class A drug addiction.”

“[The defendant] stole groceries from Sainsburys – paid for half and walked out without paying for other half at value of £74…Sad world for some with cost of living crisis and bills, bills and bills.”

“Theft of clothes from Zara. [The defendant] came to UK on asylum…can’t work on asylum?…has re-applied for indefinite leave to remain, whilst applying you cannot be on any benefits; is in financial difficulty; suffers mental health, under care of Charing Cross Hospital for PTSD; recently diagnosed with lung cancer.”

The magistrates’ courts often dealt with shoplifting offences by giving the defendants fines, even when they were vulnerable. This struck courtwatchers as pointless when the offence had been fuelled by financial hardship: “defendant seemed to have too little means for paying fine.” 

Some vulnerable defendants would instead receive a conditional discharge (the lowest level court sanction). Courtwatchers were often relieved: “Conditional discharge for 6 months, no fine, no costs. Judge was very sympathetic and treated defendant kindly as the lady obviously didn’t have much money and had other issues such as suicidal tendencies.” But some sanctions were much harsher. One courtwatcher observed a defendant receive an 18 week custodial sentence for shoplifting goods valued at £60: “Defendant was asleep in the dock, but magistrates did make sure he was awake when he was sentenced! ​​The defendant had 98 previous convictions and took the custodial sentence like he knew exactly what was coming.”

Many courtwatchers felt that dealing with low-level shoplifting cases through the courts wasn’t the best use of scarce court resources:

“It seems a waste of public funds to move the entire justice system for shoplifting of toilet papers.”

“It all felt a bit pointless/tick box. How is the man to get help for drug addiction under his own steam…It feels like not the best use of court funds and time. [Theft of wine and laundry pods from Tesco, value under £200].”

Courtwatchers also questioned if the courts were best placed to address the underlying issues that can fuel low-level shoplifting. One courtwatcher observed a case where a vulnerable woman – who had a traumatic childhood, had spent time in the care system and had struggled with her mental health – stole £150 of stuffed toys from Waterstones. The magistrate, defence lawyer and prosecutor all agreed the sentencing options available to the court would not help to rehabilitate the woman: 

“The magistrate issued a fine and expressed that she had a “lack of other options”. She noted that she was keen to “address the underlying cause of theft” but was structurally unable to do so. The prosecutor noted that the offence was committed during a community order, which in his view begged the question “are community orders rehabilitating people?”

While the desire of the court was to focus on the rehabilitation of this young woman, the options at their disposal were either proving functionally redundant (in the case of the community order) or somewhat perfunctory, as with the fine.”

Dealing with low-level shoplifting cases via out of court resolutions could both free up court resources and ensure the defendants receive resolutions aimed to address the underlying issues driving their shoplifting. We’ve done a lot of work around the benefits of resolving more crimes out of court, read more here. 

This also speaks to a bigger question: are underlying issues – mental health, poverty, alcohol and drug use – being adequately addressed by sentencing in the magistrates’ courts?