Crime and Policing Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 25—Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or subsequent shoplifting offence—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after ‘subsection (10)’ insert ‘and sections 208A’.

(3) After that section insert—

‘208A Community order: requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),

(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and

(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.

(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—

(a) a curfew requirement;

(b) an exclusion requirement;

(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—

(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and

(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or

(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—

(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;

(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(4) In subsection (1)(b), the reference to an occasion on which an offender was sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting does not include an occasion if—

(a) each conviction for adult shoplifting for which the offender was dealt with on that occasion has been quashed, or

(b) the offender was re-sentenced for adult shoplifting (and was not otherwise dealt with for adult shoplifting) on that occasion.

(5) In this section—

“adult shoplifting” means an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 committed by a person aged 18 or over in circumstances where—

(a) the stolen goods were being offered for sale in a shop or any other premises, stall, vehicle or place from which a trade or business was carried on, and

(b) at the time of the offence, the offender was, or was purporting to be, a customer or potential customer of the person offering the goods for sale;

“equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” means—

(a) in Scotland, theft committed by a person aged 18 or over in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “adult shoplifting”, or

(b) in Northern Ireland, an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 committed by a person aged 18 or over in those circumstances.

(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.

(7) Where—

(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a community order which includes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),

(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and

(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,

notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’

(4) After section 292 insert—

‘292A Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),

(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and

(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.

(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—

(a) a curfew requirement;

(b) an exclusion requirement;

(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—

(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and

(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or

(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—

(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;

(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.

(4) Section 208A(4) (occasions to be disregarded) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).

(5) In this section “adult shoplifting” and “equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” have the meaning given by section 208A.

(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.

(7) Where—

(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a suspended sentence order which imposes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),

(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and

(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,

notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).’”

This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of shoplifting, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling new clause 25. As he will be aware, under the previous Government shop theft was allowed to increase at an alarming rate—it was up 23% in the year to September 2024—and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shop workers, as we have just debated.

This Government have committed to taking back our streets and restoring confidence in the safety of retail spaces, which is why we have brought in measures to address what is essentially immunity for so-called low-value shop theft, which the previous Conservative Government introduced. Shop theft of any amount is illegal, and by repealing section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, we will help to ensure that everyone fully understands that.

Under section 22A, theft of goods worth £200 and under from shops is tried summarily in the magistrates court. The previous Government argued the legislation was introduced to increase efficiency, by enabling the police to prosecute instances of low-value theft. However, it has not worked. Both offenders and retailers perceive this effective downgrading of shop theft as a licence to steal and escape any punishment. Clause 16 therefore repeals section 22A.

Let me be unequivocal: shoplifting of any goods of any value is unacceptable, and it is crucial that the crime is understood to be serious. With this change, there will no longer be a threshold categorising shop theft of goods worth £200 and under as “low-value”. By removing the financial threshold, we are sending a clear message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators that this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment. The change also makes it clear to retailers that we take this crime seriously and they should feel encouraged to report it.

I turn to the shadow Minister’s new clause 25. The Government take repeat and prolific offending extremely seriously. I remind the Committee that sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, who take into account all of the circumstances of the offence, the offender and the statutory purposes of sentencing. The courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, including discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and custodial sentences where appropriate. In addition, as the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention has already said, previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor. Sentencing guidelines are clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous conviction, when determining the sentence.

The Ministry of Justice continues to ensure that sentencers are provided with all tagging options, to enable courts to impose electronic monitoring on anyone who receives a community-based sentence if they deem it suitable to do so. It is important to note that electronic monitoring is already available to the courts when passing a community or suspended sentence. However, it may not always be the most appropriate requirement for an offender’s sentence. We believe that the courts should retain a range of options at their disposal, to exercise their discretion to decide on the most appropriate sentence and requirements.

We cannot consider this issue in isolation. This is why we have launched an independent review of sentencing, chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to ensure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring sentencing up to date and ensure the framework is consistent. The review is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, including considering how we can make greater use of punishment outside of prison and how sentences can encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime. The review has been asked specifically to consider sentencing for prolific offenders, to ensure that we have fewer crimes committed by those offenders. It is vital that we give the review time to finalise its recommendations, including on prolific offenders, so that we are able to set out our plans for the future of sentencing in the round.

On this basis, I commend clause 16 to the Committee and ask the hon. Member for Stockton West not to move his new clause when it is reached later in our proceedings.

[Matt Vickers]

Shop thefts are on the increase, with recorded crime data showing 492,124 offences in the year—a 23% increase on the previous year. The British Retail Consortium 2025 retail crime report suggests that despite retailers spending a whopping £1.8 billion on prevention measures, such crime is at record levels, with losses from customer theft reaching £2.2 billion.

As things stand, shop theft is not a specific offence but constitutes theft under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. It is therefore triable either way—that is, either in a magistrates court or the Crown court. Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, inserted by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, provides that where the value of goods is £200 or less, it is a summary-only offence. Clause 16 amends the 1980 Act, the 2014 Act and others to make theft from a shop triable either way, irrespective of the value of the goods.

Crime and Policing Bill (Sixth sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

It is good to get rid of the perception, but it is all about the real-world consequences. As it stands, if there is such a perception, we need to smash it. People need to know that 90% of such charges relate to goods under the value of £200; it needs to be pushed out that this is a thing. When we look at retail crime overall, the biggest problem, which we tried to solve with our amendment to clause 15, is not only changing perceptions but ensuring that police forces realise that retail crime has huge consequences and needs to be prioritised. That is the fundamental problem, so it is about ensuring that the priorities are right. I do not think that changing the legislation in this space will solve that problem.

I want to go back to Oliver Sells, because I think he is a fascinating guy. He said:

“I think it is a serious mistake. I can see why people want to do it, because they want to signify that an offence is a very important in relation to shop workers. I recognise that; I have tried many cases of assaults on shop workers and the like, which come up to the Crown court on appeal, and we all know the difficulties they cause, but you will not solve the problem.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 17, Q25.]

Sir Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor, added:

“First of all, just to build on Mr Sells’s point on clause 16, I understand the huge concern about shoplifting and the perception among many shop proprietors in our towns and cities that, in some ways, it was almost becoming decriminalised and that action has to be taken. But the danger in changing primary legislation in this way is that we send mixed messages, and that the Government are sending mixed messages about what its policy intentions are.

Sir Brian Leveson is conducting an independent review into criminal procedure. We do not know yet what the first part of that review will produce, but I would be very surprised if there was not at least some nod to the need to keep cases out of the Crown court, bearing in mind the very dramatic and increasing backlog that we have. I think that anything that ran contrary to that view risks the Government looking as if it is really a house divided against itself.

It seems to me that there was a simpler way of doing this. When the law was changed back in 2014, there was an accompanying policy guideline document that allowed for the police to conduct their own prosecutions for shoplifting items with a value of under £200, if the offender had not done it before, if there were not other offences linked with it, if there was not a combined amount that took it over £200 and if there was a guilty plea.

What seems to have happened in the ensuing years is that that has built and developed, frankly, into a culture that has moved away from the use of prosecuting as a tool in its entirety. I think that that is wrong, but I do think that it is within the gift of Ministers in the Home Office and of officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to say, ‘That guidance is superseded. We hope, want and expect all offences to be prosecuted.’ That would then allow offences of under £200 to be prosecuted in the magistrates court. There is nothing in the current legislation that prevents any of that, by the way, and I think it would send a very clear message to the police that they are expected to do far more when it comes to the protection of retail premises.”––[Official Report, Crime and Policing Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2025; c. 18, Q26.]

The economic note for the legislation estimates that repealing the existing provision will result in approximately 2,100 additional Crown court cases in the first instance. It further states that, in the low scenario, cases entering the Crown court will not see an increase in average prison sentence length. In the high scenario, it assumes that these cases will now receive the average Crown court prison sentence, leading to an increase of 2.5 months per conviction. The central estimate falls between those extremes at 1.3 months, based on the assumption that cases involving theft under £200 are unlikely to receive the same sentences as those over £200.

That is reflected in a relatively wide range of possible prison sentences between the low and high estimates. What level of confidence can the Minister therefore provide on the number of people who will end up in prison, or end up in prison for longer, as a result of this move to the Crown court? Given that evidence, does this move, which appears to have a limited effect or outcome, outweigh the risk of prolonging the time it takes for victims to get justice, in the Minister’s view?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Let me address some of the points made by the shadow Minister, specifically on perception. There is a misconception that the threshold is used by police forces to determine whether to respond to reports of shoplifting, and that is simply not true. Police forces across England and Wales have committed to follow up on any evidence that could reasonably lead to catching a perpetrator, and that includes shoplifting; however, as we have heard, the measure has impacted the perception of shop theft among retailers, and would-be perpetrators who believe that low-value shoplifting will go unpunished and that the offence is not being taken seriously. The clause will send a clear message to those planning to commit shop theft of goods worth any amount that this crime will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment.

Let me turn to the impact on our courts. It was quite heartening to finally hear the Opposition mention their concern about the impact on our Crown court backlogs, given how we got there in the first place. The Government recognise that the courts are under unprecedented pressure, and we have debated why that is on separate occasions; however, we do not anticipate that the measure will add to that impact. The vast majority of shop theft cases are currently dealt with swiftly in the magistrates court, and we do not expect that to change as a result of implementing the measure. Even with the current £200 threshold in place, defendants can elect for trial in the Crown court, but they do so infrequently. Removing the threshold and changing low-value shop theft to an either-way offence will not impact election rights, and is therefore unlikely to result in increased trials in the Crown court.

Separately, as the shadow Minister noted, in recognition of the courts being under unprecedented pressure due to the inheritance we received from the Tory Government, we have commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. It will recommend options for ambitious reform to deliver a more efficient criminal court system and improved timeliness for victims, witnesses and defendants, without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I want to understand the logic of what the Minister is saying. She seems to be saying that the change to allow cases to be heard in the Crown court will be a deterrent, but she does not envisage an increase in cases being heard in the Crown court. Is she aware—I am sure she is—that it is up to the defendant to elect where their case is heard, and that the conviction rate is actually lower in the Crown court? I am concerned about the unintended consequences that more cases could be heard in the Crown court, which is more expensive, and involves a judge and a jury, for stealing perhaps a bottle of wine. It is quite extraordinary.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns; he has pre-empted my next point. To confirm, it is already currently an electable either-way offence and the vast majority of cases are tried in the magistrates court, but I will come to the modelling and the percentages right now.

Based on current data from the magistrates courts, an average of 5% of individuals in the last three years charged with shop theft—of any value—proceed to trial or are committed for sentencing in the Crown court. Around 88% of shop theft cases involved goods valued at £200 or less. For cases of theft over £200, approximately 40% of cases went to the Crown court. We have modelled a low, central and high scenario within the published economic note on this measure. The low scenario assumes that 1% of charges for shop theft under £200 would proceed to the Crown court, with the central and high scenarios assuming 8% and 14% respectively. It is also important to note that we have expanded the sentencing powers of the magistrates court and extended sitting time in the Crown court to reduce the backlog. The increased sentencing powers in magistrates courts have freed up the extent of 2,000 further sitting days in Crown courts to enable them to be used for the most serious cases, which is what they are they for.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will not give way because I am conscious of time.

Let me turn to the final point on the impact on prison places, because the shadow Minister also raised concerns about that. Again, it is important to note that the Opposition are now raising concerns about the impact on our prisons after the inheritance we received from them. Prisons almost ran out of places last summer, which was a complete dereliction of duty and responsibility; they ran the prison system to the point of our entire criminal justice system collapsing. We, as a Government, have taken action to address that, and have carefully assessed how the change can be managed to ensure that we do not place further pressure on our prisons. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Just before we proceed, I am conscious that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East stood up, very late. I cannot make an exception, though he is pretty new here. When the Chair has called the Minister to wind up, there are then no further speeches. Prior to that, Members may intervene as often as they like. I am afraid we do have to stick by the rules.

Clause 17

Child criminal exploitation

Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

Q As you will have seen, we get lots of people in here who are very familiar with this place, and then every now and again we get people who are brave, committed and dedicated to making a change and making the world a better place. Thank you for coming and for all your campaigning on this issue. All power to your elbow.

How important are the measures in the Bill, and why? Is there anything that you think the Government should be doing beyond what is in the Bill?

Colin Mackie: I think this is majorly important. It is a giant step forward. Up until now, spiking has been a very grey area. It is charged as assault, theft, poisoning or whatever; it has been such a grey area that it has been hard to process it. That has the knock-on effect of putting victims off coming forward, because they do not know where they are going to go or what is going to be talked about, and they are unsure. Perpetrators of spiking feel, “Well, nothing’s really happening over this. I don’t hear of anybody getting charged for it, and it’s only a bit of fun; we don’t think we’re going to do any harm,” so they carry on doing it.

Having a stand-alone offence is beneficial for the victims, and I also think it is beneficial for the police. I feel that once a law is in place, you are going to get a co-ordinated response from police. Currently, victims in Newcastle are treated differently from victims in Newquay, and it is the same across the whole country. That is one of the major problems that victims tell us about all the time: some forces are great, while others are not so good. I have had one victim tell me that the police said they did not have the manpower or the time to go in and check the CCTV at the club where they were spiked. Another victim told me that uniformed officers turned up and were not sure how to deal with it, but half an hour later, the CID were there and straight into the club. We cannot have that inconsistency; we need to move forward with that.

You were asking earlier, “What can we do to help?” In bringing in the Bill, we have to involve A&E, because A&E has a big part to play in this as well. All too often, as you know, it is the job of the police to gather the evidence, but a spiking victim is likely to appear at a hospital—at A&E—unconscious or confused and not sure what is going on. They are not going to think about asking for a police officer to attend—they are not in a state to do that—so unless they have a family member or a friend there, that is not going to happen. By the time they get maybe two days down the line and think, “Yeah, this is what’s happened to me; I want to report this,” there is a good chance that a lot of the evidence has gone. We need that in the Bill as well: for A&E to play a bigger part by gathering evidence and holding it for the police. Then, if the victim wants to take it forward, it is there.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Q Thank you, Colin, for coming in today and, to echo the words of the shadow Minister, for all of the work that you do on this; it is really appreciated.

You mentioned that you welcome the clarification in the Bill, which will create a specific offence of spiking by using the word “spiking”. Can you expand on why that will make such a difference for victims? You mentioned some of the issues with the police using different types of offences. Why will it make such a difference to have a specific offence?

Colin Mackie: A victim will recognise that spiking is an offence when they approach the police. Currently they are not sure if they can report it. They are nervous and they are not sure if it is an offence. That has been a big thing that we get fed to us. Away from just the girls, there is a lot of spiking going on with boys now. Males are being spiked as well. It is possible that anybody could be spiked. That is a big thing, because we find that a lot of males think it is a girls’ problem. They think it is tied in with a sexual assault or whatever. If you just say “spiking” males will think, “Yeah, I have been spiked,” and that is it—it is the fact that they have been spiked.

A lot of spiking is now taking place and nothing else is happening. People are not being sexually assaulted or robbed; they are just being spiked. It is what we call prank spiking. People are doing it because they can. I think the ability for someone to come forward and just say, “Yes, I have been spiked and there is a law on spiking,” is the way forward.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you for that. One of the other things that you touched on—it was referenced by the previous witnesses—is the importance of not just making legislative change, but having a package of support available with the other agencies around it. What can you recommend beyond legislative changes—you mentioned A&E, but I am also thinking about training, guidance and so on—to really make sure that this is a package for spiking offences?

Colin Mackie: We certainly want to get the night-time industry more involved and get stewards more aware, because all too often one of the first things said to someone who has been spiked or their friends is, “They’re drunk. I want them out the club. They’ve had too much to drink.” When we talk to nightclubs, bars and so on, we say to the stewards, “Listen to what their friends are saying. Don’t make the assumption that that person’s drunk just because they look drunk. If their friends are saying, ‘We’ve had one or two drinks,’ take on board what they’re saying. Don’t just think, ‘Oh, no, I’ve got to get this person out of here.’” They have a duty of care to look after people, and we want them to take on that responsibility.

Just at the weekend, I was reading an article on the BBC and it was talking about nightclubs in general and how footfall is falling. One of the examples was that youngsters are stopping going to nightclubs because of the fear of spiking. The industry has to look at the bigger picture and realise that if it puts in lids and deterrents, better security and better CCTV, and, as we hope with this Bill, if we start to see people being prosecuted, the numbers will come back up. People will have the confidence to come out. If they think they are going to a venue where they feel they are going to be safe, they are more likely to come, whereas currently they are walking away and finding something else to do. It is going to affect the night-time industry as well, so it really has to take it more seriously.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Thank you again for coming along and for your campaigning. You must be proud that you have got this leap—this legislation—to try to combat some of the trauma that you experienced.

I have a broader question. Do the measures included in the Bill cover all the issues that you see around the offence? Do you think the Bill is a comprehensive measure to enable action to be taken to combat the horrible offence of spiking?

Colin Mackie: It is moving forward to that level where I think it is good. I would like to see a wee bit more on the sentencing side of it. Just listening to the previous witnesses, I know that there is a backlog through the courts and everything, and I can see that being a problem. If the people who want to report spiking, especially young women, think it is going to last two years, how much of a deterrent is it going to be for them to come forward if they think it is going to drag on? That is one bit: when it comes to the sentencing and how quickly it will be processed, will that put people off reporting it?