Government vows to crack down on violence against shopworkers

In a statement yesterday, the Home Office said it would work with the National Retail Crime Steering Group (NRCSG) on a “best practice guide to support staff in reporting these crimes”; strengthen existing laws and improve data sharing between retail businesses and the police.

The government said its crime and policing minister would also write to police chiefs “underscoring the importance of working closely with local businesses to tackle this issue and emphasising that the theft of goods valued up to £200 from a shop should be prosecuted as a criminal offence”.

Home secretary Priti Patel said: “As the daughter of shopkeepers, I know what a vital role they play within our communities and just how tirelessly they have worked during the coronavirus pandemic.

“I will not tolerate violence and abuse against any shopworker and it’s right that those who commit these crimes must be caught and punished.”

The government announcement comes more than 12 months after it initially opened a call for evidence into the issue of crimes against shopworkers last year.

While the British Retail Consortium welcomed certain aspects of the government announcement, it said it was “disappointed” it did not introduce a special, criminal offence for attacking shopworkers.

BRC director of business regulation Tom Ironside said: “The government response acknowledges the need for an improved police response – something the BRC has long called for. However, we are disappointed that the call for evidence does not to seek to introduce a specific offence for attacking shopworkers.

“Retailers, business groups and MPs have already called for this intervention, with a Bill to provide additional protection for retail workers gathering cross-party support.

“Recommendations to look at the Sentencing Council guidelines and sentencing legislation are welcome, along with the indication that offences against shopworkers can already be treated as aggravated, even though they seldom are.

“Moreover, this is no substitute for the message that a change in the law would send.”