The Crime and Policing Act: The good, the bad and the missed opportunities.
The Government’s Crime and Policing Act has finally received Royal Assent and is now law. It is a largely uncontroversial piece of legislation; probably around 80% of the Act mirrors the similarly named Policing and Crime Bill proposed by the last Conservative Government. In essence there is a lot of cross party support for many of the provisions; but when Yvette Cooper came in as the new Home Secretary in 2024 she decided to rebadge the plans and relaunch it with the bulk of the contents unchanged. It also emphasises the time it can take to bring new legislation into force. Two years for this Government alone, but longer if you consider the plans by the last government which were interrupted by the election.
During the passage of the Bill through Parliament I have given oral and written evidence to the Bill Committee, worked with Peers in the House of Lords on amendments and lobbied MPs to try to ensure we get the best legislation possible to help support the police in cutting crime.
Of course any Government will trumpet their legislation as universally successful, and there are many good measures included, but I want to present a balanced analysis that also recognises the flaws, some of which are instructive about our politics more broadly.
To start on a positive - the Good. It is not too partisan to highlight that many of these points have been carried over from the previous Conservative proposals. Many of these provisions cover things that are so uncontroversial the public often think the police should, or indeed do, have such powers already. It becomes a specific offence to trespass with the intent to commit a criminal offence, and the police will now have more powers to suspend IP addresses and access data to investigate fraud and cyber offences. The law is tightened around the possession of offensive weapons. Previously, the police might search a suspect's property and find a stash of knives. These might be evidence in a wider investigation but possession in their own home may now be a specific offence if the police can demonstrate intent to cause harm. A Police Inspector is now able to authorise entry to a property based on electronic tracking devices. So if you have an airtag showing your stolen property is in someone else's house, this is now grounds for the police to enter the property. Many assumed it always was, but this extra power is a step forward, although I would argue it should be a power for Police Constables rather than needing an Inspector to authorise.
So credit where it is due, these and many other provisions of the Act are genuinely positive and I would wholeheartedly support them. I do have serious reservations about other parts however.
One of the areas the Labour Party has trumpeted as a success is retail crime and whilst this may be an unpopular view, I think this is one of the worst, most inconsistent and dubious areas of the legislation.
The supporters of the Act highlight two specific changes, both flawed in my view but ironically they are even contradictory.
Firstly, changes to shop theft offences with a value below £200. It is not often that I would actually accuse someone of lying, but categorically both Yvette Cooper and the Prime Minister have lied in their presentation of this change. They have both said, and it is commonly believed that thefts below £200 have been decriminalised, or are not investigated or prosecuted. Undoubtedly there will be failings and not every offence will result in a prosecution, but the premise is simply wrong. Around a decade ago theft below £200 became a “summary offence”, meaning that it can only be tried in a Magistrates Court, rather than potentially going to a Crown Court with a jury. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise that change, but it is just untrue to describe that as decriminalisation. Magistrates can still issue sentences of up to 6 months in prison for such offences.
So the new law removes this threshold, meaning that regardless of the value shop theft becomes an “either-way” offence. Most cases will still be heard in a Magistrates Court, but it would allow some cases to go before a jury in a Crown Court - ironic given the Government’s position of restricting jury trials. They can claim a tougher stance with one piece of legislation and are then likely to restrict all shop theft cases to the Magistrates Courts in due course!
The conclusion here is that “summary” offences are bad. Considered low level, and shop theft is more important than that. Fair enough, but hold that thought.
The Act also creates a new offence of Assault on a Retail Worker. There is no need for such an offence, it is already a crime to assault anyone, regardless of their occupation. The best argument that has been made is that it will help to understand the scale of the problem. In a few years we will be able to look at figures showing the number of assaults on retail workers, either up or down. I am not convinced we should be creating new criminal offences simply to help count things for statistical purposes. Clearly shop staff should not be subjected to assaults or threats, but the change in the law actually leaves retail workers worse off.
Despite the outcry from the Government about the apparent downgrading of theft below £200, an assault on a retail worker is of course - a summary offence. So if someone assaults two people in a shop causing some cuts or bruising, you could easily end up with different outcomes. If you work at the shop and the offence is charged as assault on a retail worker, your attacker will get a maximum of 6 months imprisonment. If you were a member of the public injured in the same incident and the attacker is charged with actual bodily harm, the maximum sentence is 5-years!
Both of these highlight the desire for our politicians to pass performative legislation aimed at placating people rather than actually solving the problems of how our criminal justice system works. Creating new offences that are not needed creates cost and bureaucracy, and unusually in this case actually delivers less protection for the intended beneficiaries.
Aside from the good and the bad there are also some missed opportunities in the Crime and Policing Act. The use of Criminal Behaviour Orders is being increased in the area of retail crime, but these measures could have gone further. Even under current legislation these can be powerful tools, but the Crown Prosecution Service are reluctant to apply for order, citing their own resource issues. The law puts a duty on the court, but is still dependent on the CPS acting independently.
Criminal high street businesses is my own area of interest where the legislation could have gone further. I worked with the Shadow Home Office Team and members of the House of Lords on an amendment that would have provided the police, councils and the courts more powers to close down criminal businesses. More details of our proposals can be found here, but it is important to note that when the Bill returned to the Commons these changes had cross-party support from many MPs, yet the Government blocked the changes.
In the same week that the Bill received Royal Assent The Times was reporting on the high levels of criminal activity amongst convenience stores in our towns and other news outlets have reported on violence between criminal businesses spilling onto the high street. These are real problems that need swift solutions. The proposed changes to Closure Orders would not provide a silver bullet but they would provide a powerful tool to support the police in cleaning up our streets.
The Home Office has indicated a review of the legislation, but it is likely to be years before meaningful change is brought about.
All in all the Crime and Policing Bill is positive, but it has highlighted the tendency of Governments to pass legislation in some areas as a substitute for real activity. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong on retail crime provisions, but I fear that in a few years time, Ministers will be going back to Parliament to legislate once again, wondering why the new regime has failed to deliver the big promises that have been made to retail staff.
