Criminal behaviour
With violent crime trebling in the past year, according to a recent RGDATA survey, Gillian Hamill talks to retailers about the implications for their business and how they would like to see the country's legal system improved
Print12 July 2013
The use of violence in retail crime has almost trebled since 2012. This was the stark conclusion of a recently published RGDATA survey, which showed that over 90% of retailers have been victims of crime in the past 12 months. Violence was used in 28% of these crimes compared to 10% in 2011. The use of guns, knives, hammers and syringes were all reported.
Impact of recession
Official Central Statistics Office (CSO) figures show that the number of reported ‘robberies of an establishment or institution’ actually declined slightly from 1,073 in 2011 to 1,016 robberies in 2012. The number of reported ‘robbery, extortion and hijacking offences’ likewise dropped from 2,932 to 2,818 incidents between 2011 and 2012. Nevertheless, this still averages out at nearly eight cases a day.
CSO figures also show the reported number of ‘theft from shop’ incidents (as distinct from robberies, which include both theft and either a form of violence or threat of violence) fell between 2011 and 2012; from 19,989 to 19,599. Leaving aside the fact that not all thefts would necessarily be reported to gardaí, there nevertheless does appear to be a correlation between the rise of shop thefts and the onset of our lingering recession.
Between 2007 and 2008, reported shop thefts jumped from 18,865 to 20,098. The number of recorded incidents continued to rise until peaking at 20,893 in 2010. The official statistics are therefore currently on a downward slope, although the rate of shop thefts is still higher than during the country’s celtic tiger years. Taken in conjunction with RGDATA’s survey of 150 members – which found that 60% of retailers believed retail crime was a "severe threat" to their business in 2012, compared to just 10% of retailers in 2011- this official decline is a rather cold comfort indeed.
Higher security costs
The unfortunate reality is that violent crime is a threat which retailers across the country have had to accept, along with the necessity of greater security measures in order to protect themselves. Tara Buckley, director general, RGDATA, told ShelfLife: "Our members are paying on average €13,000 per annum on security. This cost has risen significantly since 2011 when the average was just €5,000. The study also found that the most effective deterrent for crime is having more personnel on the shop floor. This rising cost of security systems and the requirement for extra floor staff is a severe burden for cash strapped independent retailers who are fighting to compete."
Naturally, given the country’s current financial difficulties, extra costs are not a prospect any store owner can be expected to enthusiastically embrace. Nevertheless, it is still worthwhile putting some serious thought into how you can make your business more secure. As one retailer sagely told ShelfLife: "What you don’t pay in security, you’ll pay in insurance".
According to Buckley: "Retailers should consider crime as a serious threat to their businesses and develop a crime prevention strategy. This includes staff training, the implementation of crime procedures and other security measures such as CCTV or security personnel. In regard to violent crimes, RGDATA would advise retailers not to engage with perpetrators but to call gardaí. There are a range of comprehensive guides for preventing and protecting retailers from violent crimes on the RGDATA website (www.rgdata.ie)."
Leaving retailers open to prosecution
The government’s proposed new Corporate Manslaughter Bill 2013 could also effectively create higher costs for retailers. According to Emmet O’Rafferty, chairman of the security and alarm monitoring company, Top Security: "Company directors and senior management using their employees as keyholders could leave themselves open to prosecution under the proposed Corporate Manslaughter Bill 2013, if the person is injured or killed while performing that duty".
The bill was introduced into the Senate in early May. Those prosecuted under the proposed act could face conviction including an unlimited fine and imprisonment up to 12 years. At present, it is difficult to obtain a prosecution for corporate manslaughter due to the issues in establishing the necessary criminal responsibility or ‘guilty mind’ required for such a case to go ahead. However, the Corporate Manslaughter Bill 2013 would be able to prosecute where it can be shown that the way an organisation’s activities were managed or organised by senior management was a substantial element in causing a person’s death, amounting to a gross breach of a duty of care owed to that person.
According to O’Rafferty: "It is common knowledge that certain types of businesses attract more than their share of robbery and theft-related crimes. If a business owner in those sectors continued to use an employee for keyholding duties, particularly where it involved answering alarm activations after hours, then under the new act, it could well be construed that they were not acting in the employee’s best interests and breaching their duty of care to that person."
Tom Casey of Tom Casey solicitors agrees, stating: "If and when the new act comes into force, they will need to consider delegating and outsourcing responsibility to experts with adequate insurance and experience in areas where employees are exposed to risk of death or serious risk or harm".
Deeply frustrated by legal system
Even though many retailers are acting responsibly and indeed spending more of their hard-earned cash on security measures, RGDATA’s Tara Buckley believes they are not being helped by the country’s legal system. The prosecution and conviction of criminals was the key issue for retailers that emerged from RGDATA’s study. "The vast majority of the retailers we surveyed were satisfied with gardaí response times and reactions. However they are deeply frustrated with the legal system and believe that higher penalties and zero tolerance needs to be adopted as a matter of urgency," said Buckley.
While gardaí were broadly praised for their efforts, some of the retailers that ShelfLife spoke to were concerned about a lack of resources, particularly within rural areas where guards have to drive over from the nearest town or city. This was a concern raised in the media late last year when it was reported that An Garda Síochána would be forced to cut staff numbers by 1,000 to 1,500 due to reduced budgets in 2013.
Cuts to garda numbers
However Minister for Justice Alan Shatter refuted this claim, stating it was anticipated that 400 gardaí would retire in 2013. This would bring numbers down to around 13,000, a target that should have been met by the end of 2012 under the terms of the State’s bailout. According to Shatter, the reduction in payroll was €26 million in the current year and not €35 million as had been claimed. What’s more, he said it had been known for more than two years that the funding available to the Department of Justice for this year would be €62 million lower than last year. This was actually smaller than the budget cut between 2011 and 2012 of over €100 million.
According to the Minister, a number of measures were being examined to deal with this year’s budget reduction, including controlling overtime and allowances and using greater efficiencies when gardaí appeared in court to give evidence, a practice traditionally funded by using overtime.
His official line was: "I’ve every confidence in the garda commissioner and the gardaí to fulfil their duties. There’s no reason for people to be alarmed." He added that recruitment to the force, which had been stopped under the public sector recruitment moratorium, would be examined by the end of this year or early next year.
Yet Minister Shatter’s assurances were not enough to appease the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI) which still called for cuts to be reversed. AGSI general secretary John Redmond said he was "absolutely dismayed" at the cuts but that the 25 serious crime gangs operating in the State "must be absolutely delighted" with the "short-sighted" measure.
Penalties reform
While there is disagreement over the extent to which budget cuts have affected the force, the RGDATA results clearly show that, even when the criminals involved are caught, they rarely receive an appropriate punishment. "Only 25% of perpetrators have been convicted for these crimes," said Buckley. "In our study, a five month jail sentence was the most severe penalty for these crimes; however only 5% of those convicted were given jail sentences."
The retail group wants to see the penalties system reformed "through a range of initiatives including stronger use of custodial sentences, a minimum term for robberies involving violence against a retailer and greater powers for judges to issue exclusion orders from shops to people who are persistently involved in robbing from them."
Buckley says that "RGDATA is currently attempting to change this situation through engagement with the Minister for Justice and the garda authorities". Considering that the organisation’s survey results show that 97% of retailers feel more vulnerable in recent years than in the past and that 80% of retailers are now concerned about tiger kidnappings compared to just 10% in 2011, a more stringent judicial process is something which cannot arrive fast enough.
Protecting against fraud
While the threat of violent crime is sadly an all too real one for retailers across the country, corporate fraud and so-called "petty" theft can also exert a serious influence on a retailer’s bottom line. Janice Walshe, an associate in ByrneWallace Solicitors, outlines how store owners can help stamp out this threat
The latest KPMG Bi-Annual Fraud Barometer estimates that 80% of the financial loss experienced by UK businesses through fraud is perpetrated not by customers, but by employees and managers. Of the £15 billion lost in the UK every year to corporate fraud, the majority relates to "petty" dishonesty – stationary theft, padding bills, fiddling expenses and even just using the company post for personal use. By taking some relatively simple steps, it is possible to reduce this type of fraud and to create a workplace where dishonesty is not tolerated.
How can employers prevent workplace fraud?
• Screen applicants for employment carefully. Check references and qualifications. Ask job applicants/employees to sign declarations confirming that they have no criminal convictions and that they are not the subject of pending criminal investigations.
• Carefully draft all contracts of employment, ensuring that contracts contain express clauses prohibiting fraud and requiring employees to report actual or suspected fraud.
• Have a separate policy in respect of matters where fraud is likely to occur e.g. expenses.
• Have regular internal audits and stock takes to ensure that fraud is detected at an early stage.
How can an employer investigate suspected fraud?
Where an employer suspects fraud, immediate action should be taken to investigate. In certain cases it may be appropriate to have a fact finding investigation but more often, the matter can be dealt with under the employer’s disciplinary procedures. Disciplinary procedures should be in writing and should comply with the statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. At a minimum, the employer should ensure that:
• Details of the allegations are put to the employee
• The employee is given an opportunity to respond
• The employee is informed of their right to be represented by a work colleague or trade union official
• The employee’s right to a fair determination of the issues concerned is upheld, taking into account any representations made by or on behalf of the employee and any other relevant evidence, factors or circumstances.
Investigations should take place promptly and should be conducted by an individual who can be seen to be unbiased.
In certain cases, it may be appropriate to suspend an employee for the duration of an investigation. This can only be done if suspension is provided for in the contract of employment or in the disciplinary procedures.
Even in cases of extreme dishonesty fair procedures must be followed. Failure to do so will ensure that the employer has no, or a very limited, defence to potential litigation arising out of any dismissal.
Involving the guards
If the suspected fraud is serious, the involvement of the guards may be appropriate. In such a situation, the guards should be contacted early, as even well-conducted workplace investigations can run the risk of unwittingly damaging evidence and compromising a prosecution.
CASE STUDY
Streamlined system is imperative
Michael O’Connor of Centra, Upper Salthill, Galway, recounts one particularly serious incident that occurred in his store where a woman threatened to beat up a manager and throw acid on a staff member’s face. Fortunately she did not carry out her threats but in the ruckus that ensued, managed to leave the store with a stolen packet of nappies.
With 20 cameras at his store, O’Connor was able to show security footage of the incident to gardaí who recognised the woman involved. "They knew who she was but it took over a year to get her to court and after countless statements and sending up video and going back to check it – hours of work on everybody’s part – she paid back €8.69 in court and that was the end of it."
While the retailer didn’t wish the woman in question to receive an overly strict punishment, he nevertheless commented: "What I would have preferred was that it didn’t waste so much of my time, so much of the guards’ time, so much of the court’s time and really my argument is who benefits out of that exercise? The only people who benefitted were the legal practitioners because you had the solicitor getting paid for both sides and the process was delayed.
"There’s no disincentive for her, [the criminals] can just keep continuing with what they’re doing. I’m wondering why there isn’t a more streamlined system." When asked if he thought we need to introduce stricter penalties to discourage these sorts of crimes, he replied: "What I would suggest is that we start enforcing the penalties that we have and improving on the enforcement. I would like a speedier system and I would suggest looking at other countries to see how they handle petty crime and this type of crime, because if people don’t get the message that this isn’t acceptable, then they’re going to progress to other things."
That said, O’Connor praised the guards as being "excellent" but criticised "the system of dealing with this type of crime which is slow and cumbersome".
He added that if a customer parked on a double yellow line outside a store, this offence would be efficiently followed up, through doling out fines and potentially a court appearance order. He questioned why, if such effective measures could be enacted for "the soft option", that criminals couldn’t be pursued with the same vigour?
CASE STUDY
Greater policing needed in rural areas
A retailer who preferred not to be named, told ShelfLife that his store had experienced night-time break-ins on several occasions; the biggest of which involved the theft of approximately €15,000 worth of cigarettes.
Although the store owner has 16 security cameras, the thieves were wearing balaclavas and gardaí were unable to track down the culprits. What’s more, as the retailer points out: "If they can find the [security camera] monitoring box, the control, they will take that with them as well and fire it into the ditch 50 miles away".
Since the break-ins, he has increased his security measures, and introduced more cameras, stronger steel doors, bolted locks and bolted doors to the floor.
The store owner wants to see more severe penalties and greater policing of rural areas implemented. "The big issue with us here is that we have no guards in the village and it takes half an hour for the guards to come out. One guard comes out on his own with a tin of pepper spray and these guys have balaclavas and they’re armed…It’s laughable really."
He adds that retailers are not kept informed on how their investigation is proceeding as gardaí "don’t liaise with you after the event. They send you a standard letter asking if you need counselling but they send that out to everyone. There’s no communication."
On the topic of advice for other retailers, he simply says: "You have to invest in your security because if you don’t pay for it in security you’re going to pay for it in insurance".
"I spent €15,000 on security last year. I had one full break-in and two attempts. It’s a huge cost. That’s money I have to borrow; I don’t have that money. My cash flow can’t cope with that, so I have to go and borrow and pay that back over three or four years. I have to work harder just to keep these guys out."
CASE STUDY
Implementing better security measures for your business
Bernard Whyte of Whyte’s, Co. Galway, recounts an alarming experience he encountered where a gang of seven men and women came in and managed to make off with €8,000 – €9,000 worth of cigarettes, when he was alone, working in the shop.
He has since installed a panic button in his store which is linked to the security company, Nightguard and this helped him feel more secure within the shop.
Seán Shanahan of Shanahan’s Centra in Borrisalee, tells ShelfLife that his store has also encountered several night-time break-ins, including one about a year ago where the thieves stole approximately €20,000 between both cigarettes and cash. As well as breaking the store’s shutters, the robbers knocked down an internal wall with a sledge hammer to get into a safe room. "A lot of damage was done; the damage that they do is nearly worse than the money they take," says the retailer.
"Every time they come in we improve the sections where they came in because if you were panicking about doing the whole shop you’d never stop." The Shanahans have therefore adopted measures including reinforcing shutters and barring windows.
"The security shutters are very important; our place is locked solid in the night-time. There’s no gap anywhere exposed at all; it’s all solid steel on the outside so there’s no way you can get in easily."
Due to robbers stealing recording equipment, the store has since "taken an extra precaution in that we’ve moved all our video back-up into a strong room".
With 32 cameras, the shop is under constant surveillance, but Shanahan reports that sorting through this footage is a time consuming process, especially when it comes to forecourt drive-offs. "For me to follow a drive-off takes me about an hour on the cameras minimum," he says.
With around 20 drive-offs a month, although 15 of these are usually accidental; Shanahan believes a "lack of knowledge as to who owns the cars is a huge disadvantage to any service station. I know you’re not entitled to it but I think petrol station owners should be; we’re responsible people." If retailers had access to this information or there was an office that could write to the car owner on the retailer’s behalf, Shanahan believes retailers could simply write to those involved in accidental drive-offs and request payment, thus preventing wasting garda time.
Related Articles
Irish Distillers reveals Method and Madness Amburana Finish →
Euronics sponsors National Brown Bread Baking Competition 2024 →
Dawn Meats celebrates opening of South Korean market →
Fans 0
Followers