Colin Culleton, former head of security at retailer HMV, spoke at a Skills for Security event, carried on our website, about reducing risk in retail through safer intervention, a change at HMV prompted by the killing of a loss prevention man by a thief. Jim Gannon in the July 2011 print issue of Professional Security Magazine takes up this question of whether, or how, to arrest someone for workplace theft.
I wonder what reaction Colin Culleton’s article produced from the vast number of store detectives and security personnel engaged in UK high street stores who are currently fighting the rising tide of crime against them in the form of fraud and shop theft. If it is anything like mine then we are already in tune because the plain facts are that a non-arrest or detention policy only serves the criminal and at the end of the day the business in question will count the cost. When I joined the Unipart Group of Companies back in 1985 we were then part of the Rover Group who in their wisdom operated a non-arrest and prosecution policy, needless to say it was a disaster for the company. Unipart was preparing itself for a management buyout and fortunately it had a chief executive and board who supported a positive prosecution policy which gave the new corporate security team full and absolute control over all investigation of crime within the company. In 1987 the management buy-out took place and a strong message went out to the 8000-plus workforce that if they stole or committed any form of crime against the company then prosecution was going to be the company objective. The strategy of detect, detain, prosecute and deter remained the focal core of the corporate security team and its continuing success was unshakeable and so when I read that businesses are considering or operating a non-arrest policy, thereby losing their strongest deterrent factor, they are already on the slippery road to nowhere land.<br><br>Back to reality <br>Let us not forget who we are dealing with in high street crime because in the main these are not just your average ‘man in the street’ out there for a bit of retail therapy. Examine the retail shrinkage figures please, then tell me we have no problem. Go to any council estate around the UK and see what’s on offer, all nicked from the high street and forming part of another retailing industry not forming part of any statistics including police crime figures; and so a bit of intelligence filtered out by high street security to the police will not even blur the surface let alone scratch it. Let’s not kid ourselves that others will do the job we can better do ourselves. That is catching them at the coal face while they are at it and dealing with offenders the way that it hurts most. Detect, detain and hand them over to uniformed police officers.<br><br>Heroes <br>Reading the detection figures quoted in the feature really speak for themselves , so when I read a store detective has apprehended 95 offenders in one month they get my vote straight away. Based on average detection rates, 95 shoplifters caught out of probably 950 offenders, one store detective, one high street store. What more evidence do you need to show that you need a deterrent of some kin;d otherwise you may as well throw your doors open and just pray. We know only too well what shoplifters are getting away with.<br><br>Always cheaper to deter<br>While I have always advocated that it is more cost-effective to deter than to detect, and smart uniformed security officers are in my opinion still one of the most positive ways of achieving this, they still must demonstrate their viability to those holding the purse strings. As someone who managed company manned guarding budgets for many years I know only too well how difficult it was to maintain budgets year after year in the face of continual questions justifying the presence of officers in the front line. So the occasions where officers detected and apprehended offenders were always well received and well publicised to help ease that justification burde,n as well being able to show the effectiveness of a well trained and disciplined security team.<br><br>At odds with Peter<br>While it is rare that I find myself at odds with Peter Whitehead’s viewpoint some of his comments in his contribution to Colin’s feature are a little on the naive side. When he talks about retail customers being guided away from temptation while giving them as much freedom to shop as possible, the reality is that it’s the organised crime syndicates and professional shoplifters who are hurting the high street stores the most and the softer approach does nothing but encourage these prolific offenders returning time and again. I know from experience that a pro-active and successful store detective is one of the best deterrents any high street store can ever have. Ask any active shoplifter.<br><br>No substitute for experience<br>I have always said that there is no real substitute for experience as it is what one bases their own action and opinions upon. Having worked for and in over 100 companies and organisations within my years in the commercial security sector I can state that those who operated a strong and positive security policy always came out on top when it came to the bottom line. The well publicised demise of HMV over recent months only helps to make the point.
Colin Culleton has written in reply:
I wish to respond to the above article and challenge some of the ill informed and inaccurate content and to question some of the opinions expressed.
1) In describing the policy at Unipart to consistently prosecute thieves, Mr Gannon refers specifically to the workforce. I have at no time referred to the policies implemented at HMV in respect of dishonesty or malpractice committed by staff but I can confirm that a policy of dismissal and prosecution was implemented robustly throughout my time at HMV.
2) The suggestion that detention and prosecution is the strongest deterrent available to shop thieves is wrong in my experience and not supported by the latest available statistics. Less than 4.5 per cent of prosecuted shop thieves receive a custodial sentence according to the figures available for 2009-10.
3) The police resource available to respond and deal appropriately with shop thieves has been diminishing for a considerable time and is now even more scarce. The introduction of fixed penalty notices for shop theft should have improved the situation as it allows a PC to take the most appropriate action in the circumstances. This means that those suitable for fixed penalty notices can receive them, while minimising the time it takes to process the offender. In theory, this should ensure the arrest and prosecution of known or habitual shop thieves. Sadly, in my experience this doesn’t happen and most police officers turn up with the objective of disposing with the offence at the store.
4) With reference to the detention of 95 shop thieves by one store detective in a single month, I cannot understand how an experienced industry person can give this their ‘vote’. Does Mr Gannon believe the police would or should have been called on each occasion? I regretfully don’t have that information but I do know that the average value of the arrests in the value food retailer would have been under £20, so I would not be surprised if the police were not called on any occasion. We can also assume with some confidence that if the police were called more than once on the first day of the reported month, they would have advised the store detective or store manager to deal with further offences by means of store cautions.
5) The best measure of whether your security or loss prevention policies and department expenditure is delivering a return on investment is in the annual shrinkage results. I was very proud to work for HMV for 29 years and was able to implement successful policies and deliver a return on investment consistently from 1992 to 2009. I am pleased to say I never had to justify my policies or budgetary management by detecting and apprehending thieves, as you suggest is essential.
6) For clarity, in many HMV stores there is a non-arrest policy. These were in stores that only had one loss prevention officer (LPO) and did not have detention facilities that were safe. Stores with more than one LPO and a safe detention area were permitted to make selective arrests but they were required to build up a case for the arrest and receive permission to do so. The response by the police to this policy was positive nationally and the fact was that if the police were called to a shop thief in an HMV store the person was most likely known and the evidence strong.
7) The most comprehensive review of the attitudes and decision making processes of habitual shop thieves were completed by Prof Martin Gill and this confirms my view that the most effective deterrent to shop thieves is alert, knowledgeable and motivated sales assistants. Store detectives quickly become known to the prolific shop thieves and in reality it is not difficult to either avoid the times they are working or use distraction techniques, often crude but effective. (Where retailers operate a policy of detection and not deterrent, the fact is that the store detective will be off the shop-floor for long periods of time dealing with time consuming and risky arrests, making it easier for the determined shop thief.)
8) The most effective means of preventing theft from habitual, lifestyle shop thieves is to identify them and not allow them in your store in the first place. There are numerous examples across the UK of effective, intelligence led retail crime reduction partnerships that positively impact retail crime and its associated risks.
9) I find it very strange and disappointing that in response to an article that was mainly about the health and safety risks of arrests and detention, the author makes no reference whatsoever to the proven risks of this activity but focuses predominantly on the commercial merits of arrests.
10) To conclude by suggesting some correlation between a necessary, well considered and consistently implemented loss prevention strategy and the reduction in sales in HMV is unprofessional and factually incorrect. If the author had bothered to read the article correctly he would have seen that shrink improved post the implementation of a non-arrest policy and I am pleased to report that my very talented ex colleagues at HMV continue to deliver enviable, industry leading stock-loss results within a much safer environment.
I understand that a non-arrest policy will not be appropriate or fit with the overall LP strategy for all retailers and when initially discussed at the BRC (British Retail Consortium) heads of security group in early 2007, I enjoyed some healthy debate with my respected industry peers about the strategy and its associated risks. The reason I contributed to the retail guide to safer intervention and spoke at the launch was to highlight the risks associated with arrest and detention, share the results for HMV of a non arrest and selective arrest policy and highlight that there are alternatives.
