Scott Tuppen, Barrister, 33 Bedford Row discusses the urgency for granting specially trained security operatives the legal powers to detain and arrest shoplifters.
Shoplifting is nothing new in the United Kingdom. For as long as there have been shops, there has been shoplifting.
But over recent years, the UK has not only experienced a dramatic increase in the number of shoplifting offences being committed, those committing the offence have become far more brazen, seemingly in the knowledge they are unlikely to be stopped in the act.
Barely a day goes by when social media is not awash with new videos of shoplifters stripping shelves bare, whilst security operatives watch on.
The problem has become so bad that in some cities across the country, there is barely a single item on the shelves which is not behind Perspex or locked down by chains and wires.
What is particularly interesting about this destructive phenomenon is the comments from members of the public who have viewed these videos.
The comments from international observers are especially interesting.
Those living in countries where licenced security professionals and shop owners intervene are aghast at the images of people standing idly by watching £thousands of goods being ransacked.
Those working in the security industry or in retail services, know why this is.
How many security operatives have intervened in similar circumstances only to find themselves the subject of a complaint to police and possible prosecution? Too many.
As civilians, SIA security operatives have the same extremely limited powers of arrest as the rest of us.
The civil and criminal penalties that may follow a decision to intervene are simply not worth the risk.
Security operatives generally engaged on a contract basis are obliged to follow the policies of their employer, most of whom have concluded that the legal risks associated with intervention outweigh the benefit of preventing the offence being carried out.
Quite understandably, with the law as it stands, a security operative is not going to jeopardise inevitable suspension, possible dismissal and lifechanging arrest which may follow intervention.
Retail is a notoriously low-margin business, and anyone who has been to their town centre recently will know that most high streets are fighting to survive.
Shoplifting is not the sole cause of retail decline of course, but in a sector where margins are so tight, it can make the difference between profit and loss.
But the problem is about far more than business profits.
The increasing losses experienced by retailers are passed on to consumers who are already experiencing the greatest reduction in living standards in decades.
Most importantly though is the principle that the owners of property should not have to stand idly by whilst their property is taken from them.
It is anticipated that many will say, but if the police simply investigated more, they would catch shoplifters and that would deal with the issue.
The problem with this approach is that by the time the police are involved, the damage has been done.
The police will secure CCTV, and take witness statements, but a lack of good quality evidence will often result in the investigation going no further.
If a case does reach court, the sentencing guidelines generally mean than little more than a nominal fine can be imposed.
These generally go unpaid, and in all cases: The taxpayer is left out of pocket, because the courts cannot order an offender to pay the costs of the investigation.
The courts can only order that offenders pay court costs, which represent just the tip of the iceberg.
In any event, prevention should be the priority. Dealing with the root causes of shoplifting would reduce and possibly even eliminate shoplifting in the long term.
But addressing root causes takes time and will require a cultural shift. In the meantime, retailers, consumers and taxpayers will keep fitting the bill.
The prospect of more stringent sentences may also decrease occurrences of shoplifting, but without significant investment in prison and probation services, which the country can ill afford at this time, there is no realistic prospect of this happening any time soon.
A short-term win can be achieved by empowering specially trained security operatives to detain and restrain offenders.
Security operatives need to be able to use reasonable force, in the same way constables can, to prevent crime and to apprehend offenders.
Additional training will be required, as will a more stringent licencing regime. But this is not beyond the wit of man.
This author proposes new legislation which would amend the Private Security Act 2001 to create a new statutory role of Crime Prevention & Detection Officer (CPDO).
The legislation would give CDPOs the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable when acting as a CPDO, in the same way prison officers are granted limited police-like powers when on duty.
CDPOs would be subject to a more rigorous licensing regime, which would include not only an enhanced DBS check, but also police vetting.
Chief Constables would be given a role in overseeing training and each police force would be obliged to appoint a constable for the force area with delegated powers to carry out inspections, check training records and equipment.
Crucially, CDPOs, whilst employed or contracted by the retailer, would have legal duties to the police and would have to act independently, much in the same way that solicitors owe duties to both their client and the courts.
This new regime would allow for CDPOs to detain, arrest and search suspected shoplifters and for detainees to be conveyed to police.
Crucially, police forces would take on the responsibility for the actions of CDPOs that they licence in the same way that Chief Constables are vicariously liable for the actions of their constables.
This would relieve the pressure on retailers who out of an abundance of caution presently instruct their security operatives to ‘stand back’.
Relieving retailers of the criminal and civil liability for the actions of their security operatives and allowing security professionals to work more closely with the police, would have a transformative effect.
It is suggested that the presence of CDPOs with the power to use reasonable force and arrest would improve deterrence, and lead to more offenders being brought to justice.
In the absence of a better proposal, this author suggests that the in-person retail locations will soon be confined to the history books.
