The decision to allow more crimes to be dealt with by fixed penalties destroys the basic principle that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

The Government has announced that, from next month, crimes of shoplifting up to the value of £200 and criminal damage up to £500 can be dealt with by an £80 fixed penalty.

Although record of the punishment would remain on the police national computer, it would not be regarded as a criminal conviction.

At first glance those who feel our legal system is bloated and far too costly may see this as a sensible step. Prosecuting someone for shoplifting can often cost the public purse far more than the actual value of the goods taken and ties up police and court resources. But we will pay a heavy price in terms of natural justice if we continue along this path.

I do not wish to denigrate or demonise any sector of society but, for illustration's sake, imagine a single parent caught shoplifting in Woolies because they couldn't afford to buy a Christmas present for their child.

Compare this with an opportunist who pockets a dozen CDs to sell at the local car boot sale.

Both offences are wrong and should be dealt with in court where the full circumstances can be taken into account. And this is where the single parent ends up because they don't have £80 to buy their way out of a criminal record. But the CD thief escapes the shame of public prosecution in a court and a criminal record simply by writing a cheque.

That cannot be right.

Imagine some yob scratches your car. You have the hassle of getting it repaired and the subsequent insurance premium hike. The yob - if caught - gets the option of an £80 fixed penalty. Would you feel justice had been done ?

The legal system should be based on clarity so everyone knows where they stand and all are treated equally. And we should also consider the message that this move sends out.

I firmly believe that, before committing an offence, criminals will often work out whether it is worth the risk. So is a criminal more or less likely to thieve knowing that the offence has been reduced to fixed penalty status?

Theft and criminal damage can cause immense trauma to the victims - they should not be blandly disregarded as "trivial" offences, but that is the message some might get.

If you go soft on criminal damage such as graffiti, fly posting and vandalism, you encourage others to indulge and soon you have a yob culture running wild.

That does nothing to encourage new business to set up and neither does reducing the seriousness with which society views theft.

Criminal justice should be about punishment, deterrent, rehabilitation and diversion and I don't see how a fixed penalty for theft or criminal damage achieves that.

Tony Blair once asked for police officers with a "zero tolerance of crime" - is it too much to expect the same standards of the Home Office?

Published: 29/10/2004