Either-way Until Proven Otherwise: Determining When Shoplifting is ‘Low Value’
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00220183231156305 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Either-way Until Proven Otherwise:
Determining When Shoplifting is
‘Low Value’
Candlish v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022]
EWHC 842 (Admin); [2022] 2 Cr App R 21
Keywords
Theft, summary-only, time limit, time-barred, abuse of process
Theft, contrary to s 1 Theft Act (TA) 1968, as an either-way offence is subject to the usual rules relating to
allocation. However, under the Magistrates’Courts Act (MCA) 1980, the allocation of certain theft
offences, namely shoplifting, are subject to exceptions. By way of s 22A MCA 1980, if the property
which has been stolen was being offered for sale in a shop, stall, vehicle or other premises where
trade or business is conducted; the accused was purporting to be a customer or potential customer at
the time of the alleged offences were committed; and the aggregate value of the stolen goods does not
exceed £200, then the offence will be categorised as ‘low value’. Where such an offence is deemed to
be of low value, the theft can only be tried summarily; the issue becomes: at what point in time is sho-
plifting treated as being of low value (and thus triable summary only)?
In the instant case, Christopher Candlish (C) was charged with eight counts of theft in a shoplifting
context, which were alleged to have been committed at various stores between July and August 2018.
Individually, the thefts were valued between £7.66 and £163, but the aggregate value of the goods
stolen was £442.57. C was charged with these offences by postal requisition dated 16 April 2019 to
attend the magistrates’court on 1 May 2019.
The matter was adjourned by the justices to allow legal argument to take place as to whether they had
jurisdiction to hear the case. C submitted that the offences were ‘low value’within the meaning of s
22A(1) MCA 1980, making the case summary only, as the value of the stolen items did not exceed
£200. Accordingly, as C had not been charged within 6 months from the date of the commission of
the offences (having, in fact, been charged around 8 months after the commission of the offences), the
prosecution could not proceed per s 127(1) MCA 1980. In response, the Crown argued that the offences
were not ‘low value’as the aggregate value of the goods which were stolen exceeded £200, in accordance
with s 22A(4)(b). As such, the case was not one of a summary-only character, and therefore the offences
were not subject to the 6-month time bar.
After considering both arguments and consulting their legal advisor, the justices concluded (at [8] of
Jeremy Baker J’s judgment):
Applying s22A(3) and s22A(4) Magistrates’Court Act 1980, we did not find that the offences detailed on the
charge fell under the definition of ’low value’due to their aggregate value being in excess of the statutory
threshold of £200. We found that the offences, when considered in aggregate, were either way and not
bound by the time limits imposed by s127 Magistrates’Courts Act 1980.
Case Note
The Journal of Criminal Law
2023, Vol. 87(1) 65–69
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220183231156305
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial