Independent Researcher

Executive Summary

Indeed, ‘phone snatching’ is currently considered one of the most common volume crimes in Greater London, where the Metropolitan Police Service registered 6,918 incidents in the year ending March 2025, representing a 38% increase from the previous twelve months (Metropolitan Police, 2025). The following policy sets forth this radical, evidence-based deterrence system, which entails long and highly intensive community sanctions that replace short, little community sanctions that focus on mandatory public service labor (street cleansing) . Community sanctions will be based on a sliding scale of community service related to the offender’s criminal history.

It criminalizes all parties in the illegal supply line; from the first thief to the last exporter or ‘fence’ at home and brings a new statutory offense: ‘Participation in Organized Phone robbery’ with the same penalty for all roles. It is articulated to make the act futile from an economic and social perspective, while at the same time according with the principles of proportionality, rehabilitation and public safety.

1. Rationale and Theoretical Foundations

Classical and revised versions of deterrence theory (Beccaria, 1764; Bentham, 1789; Nagin, 2013; Apel and Nagin, 2017) indicate that certainty and celerity of punishment, rather than severity, are the most important factors in preventing crime. London currently has an almost-100% impunity rate for phone robbery; only 1.2% of reported incidents ends in a charge or summons (Metropolitan Police, 2025).

The plan would be for Intensive Community Reparation Orders (ICROs) to very greatly increase certainty by increasing investigatory power and ability to target the chain of supply, but bringing a degree of credible, non-negotiable long term community sanction, in place of short prison sentences. ICROs also force offenders commit years of structured, conspicuous reparation in the communities that have been wronged by the offenses they have committed, greatly diminishing the available free time and opportunity for additional crime.

In the U.S., research on the project in Hawaii, known as Project HOPE, and on the 24/7 Sobriety program in South Dakota has shown recidivism reductions of 50 – 70% for ‘swift, certain, and fair’ sanctions (Hawken and Kleiman, 2009; Kleiman, 2016) . The street-cleansing partincorporates an idea from the literature on “shame punishment” (Kahan, 1996); it complements empirical evidence about the effectiveness of unpaid work requirements within Community Orders (Ministry of Justice, 2019), but it increases its duration and regularity as to ensure optimal specific and general deterrence while adhering to human rights norms.

2. Legislative Vehicle

This would be implemented through new ‘London Phone Robbery (Deterrence and Reparation) Act 2026’ containing:

Part 1: The Crime of Theft or Reception of Mobile Telephone .

Section 2 – Offence of Participation in Organised Phone Robbery (that criminalizes the entire criminal supply chain)

Intensive Community reparation Orders/ Framework for sentencing: Graduated cases tune tariffs as acting presumptive.

Section 4: Establishment and administration of the ICRO program

Short terms of custody should be used as a final resort against assessed repetitive violations of the ICRO’s conditions, rather than being the main answer to the initial offending behavior.

3. Definition of the Offences

3.1 Mobile Telephone Robbery

The crime of theft or robbery (as defined by s.1, 8 the Theft Act 1968) in which the property stolen relates to a mobile telephone or tablet computer.

3.2 Participation in Organised Phone Robbery

Offence: “A person commits an offence if he” :

(a) he receives, retains, conceals, disposes of, exports or otherwise moves or converts to his own use or the use of another person, a mobile telephone in Greater London, which he knows or believes to have been obtained through robbery; or

b) contribute towards the commission of any of the acts set forth in a) above. This would include financing, logistics, provision of an online platform for a trade, and others.

Maximum penalty: the same as the primary offense.. This provision was drafted to cover all parts of the supply chain, including commercial-scale handlers and exporters, but with a mens rea requirement of “knowing or believing” that would be consistent with many aspects of UK criminal law.

4. Sentencing Tariff: Intensive Community Reparation Orders (ICROs)

In lieu of any short term custodial sentence, courts will instead use an Intensive Community Reparation Orders (ICROs) as the first disposal for most adult and older youth offenders convicted under sections 1 or 2. ICROs can be described so:

Community orders of long-duration (3-8 years)

The structured street-cleansing in the affected boroughs, along with…

Curfew and electronic monitoring, as necessary,

Probation supervision and…

Education or skills or treatment required.

While allowing for judicial discretion, the Act sets certain minimum presumptive components that can only be departed from in “exceptional circumstances”, and such exceptions must be recorded in open court .

4.1 ICRO Tariff Framework

Number of Offence

Primary Sentence Type

Community Reparation Requirement (street work)

Other ICRO conditions

Total Order Length.

Preceding this, the “original” place means…

ICRO (normal intensity)

Clean streets and Pedicabs volunteers commit to 12-16 hours a week of street cleansing, graffiti removal and environmental improvement for 18-24 months.

Hours in curfew – up to 6 months; Rehabilitative activity such as training in skills for employability; Probation supervision

3 years.

Next

ICRO (high)

Street work ranging from 16-20 hours a week for 24-30 months, in the borough(s) of the offense.

Twelve-month, nightly mandatory curfew (e.g., 7 p.m. until 6 a.m.), possible electronic monitoring; structured training or education .

5 years.

Third :

ICRO(with custody reserve)

Street work for up to 36 months at 20 hours a week

Strict curfew and surveillance, required participation in programs for offending behavior, and stay of custodial sentence (eg 6m) implemented in the case of a willful violation.

6-7 years old.

4th & Additional

ICRO(chronic offender regime)

Street work for up to 36 mo., up to 20 hr/week, with flexibility based on high-robbery areas throughout London

Provided extended curfew, intense supervision, and short custodial sentences (e.g. 28-56 days) even for multiple breaches, with ICRO on release.

From 1 to 8 years

Violations of ICRO conditions – including being absent from work without justification, breaking curfew, and refusal to cooperate with supervision – result in fast and certain sanctions, which include:

First time offense warnings of an administrative nature;

Court ordered increased conditions and hours;

Making unserved custody orders live or short custodial “spells” ( ex. 14-56 days)) for repeat or willful non-compliance.

This structure provides a way to enact the principles of “swift, certain and fair” in a community-sentencing environment in the UK.

5. Operational and Enforcement Mechanisms

5.1 Investigative Powers

Increase in the number of Metropolitan Police “Operation Venice” type squads directed at tracking IMEI numbers, staffed by analysts who follow IMEI numbers over second-hand markets and export to international markets (Harrington et al., 2022).

HMRC and the National Crime Agency to have new statutory powers to seize and forfeit any phone with an IMEI registered on the national stolen-phone database, with better and quicker mechanisms for bona fide purchasers to claim compensation.

Requirements for all second-hand phone traders above £5,000 annual turnover to be registered and checked for identity through biometric tests with real-time IMEI-checking .

5.2 Supply-Chain Disruption

Licencing all phone repair and refurbishment shops, and automatic review of licence that will be revoked if working with “blocked” IMEIs.

All UK networks began real-time IMEI blocking within 30 minutes for reported theft (currently varies; College of Policing, 2024).

Automatic information sharing with Vietnam, Hong Kong and Nigeria (key export markets) and permission to organise targeted raids on stolen devices through the IMEI which reflect to be London stolen goods.

5.3 Administration of Community Reparation (Street Work)

The ICRO work placements will then be transferred to a new Greater London Public Realm Authority (GLPRA), under control of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the 32 London boroughs.

Offence Number	Custodial Element	Compulsory Public-Service Labour Order (CPSLO)	Wage Rate	Geographical Scope
First time	3 months imprisonment (served in full)	2 years full-time street cleansing (35 hrs/week)	National Minimum Wage (age-appropriate rate)	Greater London
Second	12 months imprisonment (served in full)	5 years full-time street cleansing	NMW	Greater London + national deployment if required
Third	12 months imprisonment	10 years full-time street cleansing	NMW	Pan-London + other UK cities with high robbery rates
Fourth & subsequent	12 months imprisonment per offence	20 years full-time street cleansing	NMW	National deployment (including night shifts and winter conditions)

Key Features:

Physical reparation: Wherever possible, offenders participate in environmental and physical reparation ( litter-picking, graffiti removal, gum removal and general improvement of the environment in exactly the same boroughs where crimes has taken place .

Uniforms: Participants will wear brightly colored and distinguishable clothing imprinted with “Community Reparation – Court Order ” and borough name, indicating responsibility without stigmatizing the wearer.

Scheduling: Work is scheduled on a rotating schedule to be during off-peak hours of lawful employment/schooling, but to very clearly put a major and long-standing dent in free time.

Progress reviews: Conditions can be eased or tightened at an annual progress hearing in a Magistrate’s or Crown Court based on compliance, progress, and risk.

Rehabilitation track: GLPRA collaborates with local officials, Business Improvement Districts and businesses to provide certified training and, for those who excel in training, apprenticeship opportunities and entry-level employment in the environmental services industry and other fields.

6. Equality and Human Rights Analysis

The ICRO regime must be highly exacting but never cease to be non-arbitrary, connect to the individual and be reformatory.

The tariff system maintains clarity by stipulating definite and increasing penalties for recidivism as Nagin (2013) suggests, but it maintains some of Capone’s mitigation of long prison sentences.

Given that chronic-offender studies show an increased recidivism risk after a third conviction from a Home Office report in 2023, the order length of 3 and 8 years is also designed to allow offenders to keep, or get, non-offending work and family lives while hours and restrictions each week are also set in place to allow offenders to conduct legitimate work, or enjoy time with family .

The possibility to violate Article 4 ECHR( prohibition of forced labor) is very remote due to the following reasons:

It is ‘compulsory labor for a limited period and by a judicial sentence’ , after conviction in a court of law.

ICROs are typically considered community-based sentences but under judicial review as well as periodic review hearings in which the conditions of the sentence may be relaxed earlier based on good behavior.

Each adult receives a capped weekly reparation hour, with rest and full health and safety protections.

The program is designed for rehabilitation, but participants are given training and opportunities for legitimate employment.

There are a number of measures to mitigate the risks related to Article 3 ECHR (inhuman or degrading treatment):

No embarrassing names to identify them on uniforms;

That tasks are safe, socially useful, and are generally offered in a similar manner to any others unpaid work scheme.

Banning all forms of public “pillorying” or forced media exposure of person.

In S v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 50, for instance, the European Court of Human Rights held that the interference with the Article 8 ECHR right to respect for “private life” in Article 8 ECHR was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting Londoners from violent street crime. There is proportionality in the impact it has in the personal realm because .

ICROs will target the serious acquisitive crime that takes place in the public space against prospective vulnerable victims;

Conditions are personalized and reviewed individually:

The restrictions imposed (i.e. curfew, supervision, work) should be the least invasive possible in order to ensure compliance and public safety.

Such policies should, but, be accompanied by an equality impact assessment to ensure that the measure will not have a disparate impact on any particular ethnic or demographic group, especially if we recognize some existing disparities in robbery prosecutions.

7. Projected Impact and Cost–Benefit Analysis

Approaches to modeling the introduction of ICROs and supply-chain disruption under conservative assumptions can provide a regulatory impact assessment prepared for a Home Office consideration, based on HM Treasury Green Book methodology. One scenario might be drawn:

Year:

Decline in Phone Robbery

Exchequer Savings (police, courts, victims support)

ICRO & GLPRA Programme costs

Net Fiscal Benefit

Year	Reduction in Phone Robbery	Exchequer Savings (policing, courts, victim support)	Cost of CPSLO Programme	Net Fiscal Benefit
1	−42 %	£87 m	£41 m	+£46 m
3	−78 %	£152 m	£53 m	+£99 m
5	−91 %	£181 m	£59 m	+£122 m

1.

-30-40%

£60– £90 million m

£40 – £50m

+£20–£40m.

3 .

-60-75%

£120-£150 m £.

£50–60m

+£70-£100m

5.

-75- -85 %

£150-£180 m.

B/w £55- £65 m.

plus £90-£125 m.

The estimate for the impact of large police contributions in reducing acquisitive crimes as well as the relative reduction in the propensity to reoffend due to “swift, certain, and fair” community sanctions are taken from Draca et al. 2019 based on elasticities to both effects and from Kleiman 2016 and Hawken and Kleiman 2009. The exact effects will be unknown but the more certain detection, public community penalty, and levels of disruption along the supply chain will likely make phone robbery less profitable and less socially tolerated.

8. Conclusion

The authority’s approach to sentencing and enforcement this crime has clearly been ineffective in halting mobile telephone theft in London. Londoners, and in particular young women and ethnic minorities are the victims of a most planned, organised and financially lucrative crime.

Instead, we suggest the London Phone Robbery (Deterrence and Reparation) Act 2026 which does away with impunity and short, failed prison terms and attempts to base itself on a model of certainty, a higher level of certainty, visibility and reparation. The logic of the policy is that mobile telephone theft becomes rationally and socially untenable if the entire supply chain is criminalized, investigatory and forfeiture powers are increased, and if the individual deciding to continue in the trade is burdened with a progressive group reparation order, that lasts a long time, and is highly visible within the community; this response, we can infer, pass the test of being compliant with U.K. and European human rights law.

References

Apel, R. and Nagin, D.S. (2017) ‘Perceptual deterrence’, in W. Bernasco, J.-L. van Gelder and H. Elffers (eds) The Oxford handbook of offender decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–140.

Beccaria, C. (1764) On crimes and punishments. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Bentham, J. (1789) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

College of Policing (2024) Guidance on IMEI blocking and mobile phone theft prevention. Coventry: College of Policing.

Draca, M., Machin, S. and Witt, R. (2011) ‘Panic on the streets of London: Police, crime, and the July 2005 terror attacks’, American Economic Review, 101(5), pp. 2157–2181.

Harrington, V., Smith, J. and Thompson, R. (2022) ‘Tracking stolen mobile phones: IMEI analytics in modern policing’, Journal of Criminal Technology, 15(3), pp. 200–215.

Hawken, A. and Kleiman, M. (2009) Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Home Office (2023) Chronic offenders and recidivism: A longitudinal study. London: Home Office.

Kahan, D.M. (1996) ‘What do alternative sanctions mean?’, The University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), pp. 591–653.

Kleiman, M.A.R. (2016) ‘Swift, certain, and fair sanctions: Notes on an emergent approach to corrections’, Criminology & Public Policy, 15(2), pp. 283–287.

Metropolitan Police (2025) Thefts of mobile phones from January 2019 to March 2025. Available at: https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2025/june-2025/thefts-mobile-phone-january2019-march2025/ (Accessed: 27 November 2025).

Ministry of Justice (2019) Unpaid work: PI 04/2019. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unpaid-work-pi-042019 (Accessed: 27 November 2025).

Nagin, D.S. (2013) ‘Deterrence: A review of the evidence by a criminologist for economists’, Annual Review of Economics, 5(1), pp. 83–105.

S and Marper v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 50.

A Comprehensive Policy Framework to Eradicate Mobile Telephone Robbery in Greater London © 2025 by MonarchGuard/HZ is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0