Theft Offences Response to Consultation 1

Theft Offences Response to Consultation RESPONSE CONSULTATION October 2015 Theft Offences Response to Consultation 1 Contents Foreword 2 Introduction 3 Approach 5 Culpability 7 Harm 12 Aggravating factors 16 Mitigating factors 18 Sentence levels 19 Next steps 21 Annex A: Consultation questions 22 Annex B: Consultation respondents 25 © Crown copyright 2015 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. 2 Theft Offences Response to Consultation Foreword On behalf of the Sentencing Council I would As a result of this work, the general approach like to thank all those who responded to the outlined in the consultation has been consultation on theft offences, and those who maintained, but a number of amendments have attended the consultation events. I would like to been made, principally to the assessment of make particular mention of the members of the harm within certain theft offences. The Council judiciary who gave their time to participate in wished to ensure that any additional harm the considerable research exercise undertaken caused to victims of theft could be taken into to inform the development of these guidelines. account by courts where appropriate, but that the process for assessing this harm should be As with all Sentencing Council consultations, clearer than the one outlined in the consultation. the views put forward by all consultees were The Council hopes that these guidelines carefully considered, and the range of views and will improve consistency in the approach to expertise were of great value in informing the sentencing these offences. definitive guidelines. The guideline covers a spread of different theft offences, and within these offences, Lord Justice Treacy there is a wide spectrum of different types of Chairman, Sentencing Council offending. The Council wanted to ensure that the definitive guideline would be as robust and comprehensive as possible. After the consultation, the Council decided that additional work and research was necessary in order to provide an effective guideline, thus resulting in a delay in the original anticipated timetable. Theft Offences Response to Consultation 3 Introduction In April 2014 the Sentencing Council published ‘The proposed guidelines appear well a consultation on draft guidelines on sentencing considered’ theft offences. The consultation ran for 12 weeks West and Central Herts Magistrates’ Bench during which time a number of engagement events were held. The events were co-hosted ‘Our response is very much in support of (the) with a cross section of interested parties. The proposals’ response to the draft guidelines was favourable, National Policing Lead for Acquisitive Crime subject to matters of detail or specific points, and quotes have been included throughout to give an indication of the views of consultation respondents. Date Co-hosts Attended by Location 6 May 2014 North London Magistrates Magistrates London 9 May 2014 British Transport Police Police London 12 May 2014 Prison Reform Trust and Leigh Day NGOs and practitioners working Birmingham with offenders 20 May 2014 Prison Reform Trust and Leigh Day NGOs and practitioners working London with offenders 3 June 2014 Association of Convenience Stores Retailers London 24 June 2014 Welsh Magistrates Magistrates Cardiff These events enabled representatives of in breach of trust, theft in a dwelling, and theft interested parties to consider the proposals that from the person. There is also guidance for theft were of particular relevance to them in detail offences in the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing and to provide officials and Council members Guidelines (MCSG). For some common types with their views. of theft, such as theft of a motor vehicle or theft of a bicycle, there were no guidelines. The In 2008, the predecessor body of the Sentencing definitive theft guideline will now bring together Council, the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) guidelines for the most common theft offences produced the definitive guideline, Theft and in one place. A separate Burglary Definitive Burglary in a building other than a dwelling. This Guideline came into force in 2012. contains guidelines for theft from a shop, theft 4 Theft Offences Response to Consultation Academics 3% In total 92 responses were received, mainly Professional body Charity 13% by e-mail or letter and 20 responses were 14% submitted online. Probation 1% Government 1% Police Individual Research 3% Throughout the development and 12% consultation process the Council has Other used its team of social researchers to 5% commission and conduct detailed research to help inform the proposals including: • Qualitative research to explore the views Industry 1% of sentencers (magistrates, District Judges and Crown Court Judges) on the Judiciary 2% draft guidelines during the consultation and then on revised guidelines post Legal consultation; in both phases of research Magistrates 40% practitioners 2% views on the content of guidelines were explored, along with any potential behavioural implications of the proposals on sentencing practice. In Breakdown of respondents1 total interviews with 63 sentencers were Category Number of responses conducted over these two phases of Academics 3 work; Charity 12 • Observational research in magistrates’ courts covering 42 cases; this followed Government 1 a review of existing evidence and Individual 12 academic research, which highlighted Industry 1 that information on some important Judiciary 2 areas was not readily available (for (from two representative bodies) example the values involved in some Legal practitioners 2 thefts); and Magistrates 36 • Quantitative analysis of transcripts of (21 collective and 15 individual responses) sentencing hearings relating to 116 Other 5 defendants in the Crown Court for theft Police 3 offences. This provided indicative but Probation 1 valuable information on some of the key factors influencing sentencing decisions Professional body 14 for theft cases together with providing Total 92 additional information on current sentencing practice. 1 A list of respondents is at Annex B Theft Offences Response to Consultation 5 Approach ‘These seem to be very good guidelines’ of different types of theft, such as breach South Cambridgeshire Bench of trust cases, were included. Earlier in the development of the guideline, the Council did ‘The range of theft related offences given is consider separating ‘personal’ theft (such as considered to be sensible and pragmatic’ theft from the person, theft in breach of trust) South and East Cheshire Bench from other theft (such as theft of a bicycle, or car) but concluded that all types can be In the consultation the Council proposed that considered ‘personal’ to the victim and all the there should be six guidelines, as set out below: offences could and should be included within General theft one guideline. Theft from a shop Handling Stolen Goods The consultation document also asked if it was Going Equipped for Theft or Burglary appropriate to have separate guidelines for the Abstracting Electricity abstraction of electricity and making off without Making off Without Payment payment, or whether they should be subsumed within other theft guidelines. The responses to The consultation document asked whether a both questions were strongly supportive of the single guideline was appropriate for general approach taken (88.5 per cent and 88.9 per cent theft, for all section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 respectively) so the Council decided to maintain (the Theft Act) offences other than shop theft. its approach of separate guidelines. The majority of those who answered this question agreed with the proposal. Of those A few suggestions were made for additions to who disagreed, criticism was made of the ‘broad the guidelines. The Stolen and Missing Pets brush’ approach taken. A small number also Alliance proposed that guidelines should suggested that a separate approach was needed be introduced for theft of pets. The Council for more ‘personal’ types of thefts, or for breach considered this request but concluded that the of trust cases. general theft guideline adequately deals with this type of theft. The harm caused by the theft Given the large number of positive responses of a much loved pet can be taken into account to a single general theft guideline (over 70 as part the assessment of harm, in which the per cent), the Council decided to maintain factor of ‘emotional distress’ would enable the this structure. Care had been taken in the court to reflect any significant additional harm development of the guideline to ensure that caused by the theft. factors which reflected the specific nature 6 Theft Offences Response to Consultation The UK Revenue Protection Association Question 12 in the consultation document suggested that specific guidance for the asked: ‘Do you feel the shop theft guideline abstraction of gas would be helpful in a similar gives the right level of guidance?’ Although way to that proposed in the abstraction of this question specifically referred to shop theft, electricity guideline. The theft of gas is an as the guidelines all follow a similar structure

Load more