Information held by the Ministry of Justice on the number of offenders cautioned, found guilty, sentenced and those given a sentence that includes an element of probation at all courts for ‘stealing from shops and stalls’ (shoplifting), in the East of England region, 1999 to 2007, are shown in the following tables 1 and 2.
The court proceedings database does not hold specific information on the offender beyond age, gender and the court where the case was heard; therefore the Ministry of Justice cannot tell if the offender was a resident of the East of England region.
Court proceedings data for 2008 are planned for publication at the end of January 2010.
Region/police force area 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Bedfordshire 681 492 647 513 641 753 855 887 687 Cambridgeshire 433 532 430 428 420 550 843 770 601 Essex 1,016 946 1,014 810 767 805 1,277 2,069 2,611 Hertfordshire 568 704 777 604 662 760 749 897 980 Norfolk 573 638 495 382 400 580 648 886 708 Suffolk 379 572 599 396 428 466 487 521 604 East of England region 3,650 3,884 3,962 3,133 3,318 3,914 4,859 6,030 6,191 1 The cautions statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been cautioned for two or more offences at the same time, the principal offence is the more serious offence. 2 From 1 June 2000, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force nationally and removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and replaced them with reprimands and warnings. These figures have been included in the totals. 3 Stealing from ‘shops and stalls’ (shoplifting) is an offence under Theft Act 1968, section 1. 4 Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts, and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Office for Criminal Justice Reform: Evidence and Analysis Unit.
Region/police force area 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Bedfordshire Found guilty 798 805 867 916 1,098 1,073 879 551 594 Total sentenced 809 812 874 928 1,109 1,076 881 554 593 Of which: Community rehabilitation order 125 154 146 152 155 129 91 — — Community order n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40 100 110 Suspended sentence — — 2 3 2 2 3 22 25 Immediate custodial sentence 176 213 236 268 312 285 229 106 112 Cambridgeshire Found guilty 704 872 895 857 791 717 802 808 717 Total sentenced 701 869 897 853 791 716 803 808 710 Of which: Community rehabilitation order 68 116 121 171 124 124 39 1 — Community order n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 92 152 152 Suspended sentence — 2 — — — — 11 33 45 Immediate custodial sentence 82 101 122 97 113 86 99 119 109 Essex Found guilty 1,622 1,578 1,744 1,624 1,686 1,646 1,841 1,715 1,913 Total sentenced 1,628 1,573 1,746 1,631 1,701 1,646 1,846 1,716 1,896 Of which: Community rehabilitation order 214 229 230 236 229 151 68 4 3 Community order n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 164 311 394 Suspended sentence 3 — 3 1 2 2 36 98 113 Immediate custodial sentence 360 372 466 486 542 518 535 419 432 Hertfordshire Found guilty 779 889 917 964 1,051 1,130 1,126 874 846 Total sentenced 781 892 916 966 1,049 1,126 1,131 867 839 Of which: Community rehabilitation order 121 129 154 160 165 134 71 2 1 Community order n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 106 178 182 Suspended sentence 1 — 1 — 2 — 18 40 43 Immediate custodial sentence 86 134 176 199 191 237 239 199 160 Norfolk Found guilty 1,027 991 1,088 1,045 944 925 923 1,040 885 Total sentenced 1,033 989 1,083 1,043 941 919 920 1,035 885 Of which: Community rehabilitation order 92 107 146 151 90 60 35 6 2 Community order n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 116 256 192 Suspended sentence 1 2 3 3 3 — 14 56 36 Immediate custodial sentence 122 133 152 147 152 157 106 136 150 Suffolk Found guilty 666 749 771 743 839 726 745 659 732 Total sentenced 654 745 770 739 836 724 744 658 725 Of which: Community rehabilitation order 59 92 94 88 98 52 55 4 2 Community order n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 27 77 131 Suspended sentence 2 2 1 3 3 4 40 42 56 Immediate custodial sentence 101 106 102 112 132 104 110 111 99 East of England region Found guilty 5,596 5,884 6,282 6,149 6,409 6,217 6,316 5,647 5,687 Total sentenced 5,606 5,880 6,286 6,160 6,427 6,207 6,325 5,638 5,648 Of which: Community rehabilitation order 679 827 891 958 861 650 359 17 8 Community order n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 545 1,074 1,161 Suspended sentence 7 6 10 10 12 8 122 291 318 Immediate custodial sentence 927 1,059 1,254 1,309 1,442 1,387 1,318 1,090 1,062 n/a = Not applicable. 1 Formerly a probation order. 2 Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, various types of community order previously available for adults (community punishment order, community rehabilitation order, drug treatment and testing order) were replaced by a single generic community order with a range of possible requirements. Courts are able to choose different elements to make up a bespoke community order, which is relevant to that particular offender and the crime(s) they committed. 3 Fully suspended sentence prior to April 2005, suspended sentence order for offences committed from 4 April 2005. 4 Stealing from ‘shops and stalls’ (shoplifting) is an offence under Theft Act 1968, section 1. 5 These statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. 6 Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts, and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Office for Criminal Justice Reform: Evidence and Analysis Unit.