Britain's ‘permissive' approach to crime costs 10pc of GDP every year, analysis suggests

Telegraph

03-03-2025

Britain's 'permissive' approach to crime is costing the UK as much as £250 billion a year – or the equivalent of 10 per cent of GDP – according to a report backed by former home secretary Sir Sajid Javid.
Knife attacks, robberies and shoplifting have risen by between 50 to 90 per cent since 2015, costing individuals some £63 billion alone each year. The impact on business and the public sector adds £69 billion to the bill, according to the analysis by the think tank Policy Exchange.
It calculated that about half the total bill stemmed from people and businesses changing their behaviour: from the cost of a taxi home at night because of a perceived fear of being attacked to businesses that are leaving the UK because of high crime rates.
And 'police permissiveness' – with as few as one in 20 crimes being solved – was also amongst the reasons cited for the massive bill, according to the report. Also blamed for incentivising criminals were: the fall in police numbers in the 2010s; a reduced trust in justice; and rising court backlogs.
In a foreword to the report, Sir Sajid, who was also chancellor under Boris Johnson, said: 'Criminals' actions destroy trust in other people, trust in institutions and trust in government. And without trust, our police forces and the free market cannot function.
'A situation in which people believe that when they report a crime the police will not follow up and the perpetrator will not be brought to justice is not sustainable.
'Restoring that trust, and the rule of law on which prosperity relies, must be a priority for the Government. Without it, our society will suffer. Our prospects for economic growth will suffer. And the costs of that will fall squarely on the British people. We can, and must, do better.'
The report recommended that the Government should spend an extra £5 billion on the criminal justice system, including £2.4 billion to invest in an extra 53,000 more prison places, £1.9 billion on extra police officers and staff, £500 million on the courts and £200 million on new technology to fight crime.
It said defence spending should be ring-fenced but other areas of government should be cut to pay for the increased funding including Civil Service staffing levels, the benefits bill and overseas aid.
It said the regime for uprating pensions should be reviewed.
The report also recommended that the Government should introduce new legislation to jail hyper-prolific offenders – anyone who has 45 or more convictions – for a minimum of two years.
It proposed scrapping concurrent sentences, where criminals serve a single bloc of time for different offences, and instead face longer terms through serving their sentences consecutively. It follows research by Policy Exchange that nine per cent of offenders accounted for more than half (52 per cent) of crimes.
Immediate deportation
The report called for amendments to immigration legislation that would ensure any foreign national convicted of a criminal offence should be subject to immediate deportation at the end of their sentence.
It also recommended that the Special Constabulary should be remodelled entirely as the 'Reserves Constabulary' – based upon the contribution made by the Armed Forces reservists.
This should entail a substantial increase in the size of the reserve constabulary which would ensure a minimum annual commitment and long-term deployments into emergency response and specialist capabilities.
The most extreme 'hotspots' for the most serious offending, such as knife crime, should be identified and police chiefs held to account for delivering a relentless policing presence in those areas.
'Where reasonable grounds exist, every opportunity to lawfully stop and search individuals should be taken alongside the widespread implementation of live facial recognition to better fight crime,' said the report.
'There should also be greater legal protections for police officers undertaking actions on behalf of the state to reduce the incidence of vexatious allegations of misconduct and the risk of prosecution alongside a substantial scaling back of the powers and scope of the Independent Office for Police Conduct.'