Stiffer sentences introduced for thefts from war memorials

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/06/stiffer-sentences-thefts-war-memorials-heritage-sites

Version 0 of 1.

Thieves who steal valuable metal from war memorials or loot historic sites are likely to face tougher penalties under new sentencing guidelines.

A new category for assessing harm inflicted by offenders – “damage to heritage assets” – has been introduced in the latest advice to judges on theft offences circulated by the Sentencing Council.

The change reflects public disquiet over the disappearance of scores of bronze and copper plaques. This summer a thief who desecrated a war memorial in Perthshire that carried the name of his own great-grandfather was jailed for a year.

It is hoped that the sentencing recommendations will also provide a more powerful deterrent against damaging ancient masonry and sites such as shipwrecks.

Mark Harrison, the national policing and crime adviser for Historic England, said: “The value of England’s heritage can’t be judged in pounds and pence. The impact of theft on our historic sites and buildings has far-reaching consequences over and above the financial cost of what has been stolen.

“Heritage crime comes in many forms. When thieves steal metal from heritage assets such as listed churches, artefacts from the ground or historic stonework from an ancient castle, they are stealing from all of us and damaging something which is often irreplaceable.”

The sentencing guidelines also provide for stiffer punishments for offences that increase the risk of harm to people, such as where electrical cables are stolen.

Jill Gramann, a magistrate and Sentencing Council member, said: “Theft offences are some of the most common crimes that come before the courts, and these offences vary greatly. They range from someone stealing from shops to fund an addiction to organised gangs stealing designer goods to order, or people diverting electricity to power a cannabis farm.

“The new guidelines will help judges and magistrates deal with this great variety of offences while ensuring that the harm caused to the victim is central to the sentencing decision. Thefts are committed for financial gain, but can mean much more than financial loss to the victim and we want to ensure sentences take this into account.”

Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, which was consulted in the production of the guidelines, said: “In volume terms, theft is the top crime concern for retailers and our data shows that the average cost of each theft suffered by our members soared to £241 in 2013-14.

“It is positive that the new guideline allows sentencers to take into account the full impact of theft offences, which includes the non-financial consequences for businesses and their staff.”

Richard Monkhouse, national chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, said: “Theft is one of the most frequent offences dealt with in the magistrates court and they are highly varied. Likewise, the impact on victims is equally as varied, ranging from financial loss to reduced confidence. It’s well worth noting that shops and small businesses trying to make a living feel this the most acutely.

“On behalf of magistrates, we welcome this comprehensive and detailed guideline that will help our members sentence each offender as effectively as possible in our attempts to reduce offending and taking into account all relevant factors.”