This post is by Campbell Hanley (undergraduate student at Sussex Law School). It is the third of four posts highlighting recent undergraduate research and was initially written for Sussex Law School’s Protest Law module.
In times of crisis, how far does the law allow civil disobedience according to objective morality? This is the question a group of British activists known as ‘This is Rigged’ have thrust into the spotlight by shoplifting from major retailers and adding the products to the shop’s own in-store food banks. A modern-day Robin Hood redistributing ill-gotten gains to those in need.
On one level, the behaviour of ‘This is Rigged’ seems a clear-cut case of theft. The Theft Act 1968 unambiguously prohibits taking property belonging to another, regardless of motive. Most would consider shoplifting dishonest by the standards of ordinary people.
However, juries’ considerations do change with society’s notions of what is ‘moral’ and ‘honest’. In an economy where supermarkets have been knowingly driving inflation, analysis from trade union Unite shows the top three supermarkets – Tesco, Sainsbury’s, and Asda – have taken advantage of increased food costs and doubled their profits to £3.32bn in 2021, from 97% in 2019.
With this in mind, this blog will explore some of the defences that could be utilised for activist groups who employ shoplifting as a tool of civil disobedience:
Section 2(1) of the Theft Act 1968 outlines that theft cannot take place if a ‘person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest’—
(a) If he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person
There is an argument to be made that shoplifting protestors honestly believed they had a legal right to take the property on behalf of the food bank recipients. They might claim that the human right to food and the moral imperative to prevent hunger should override normal property rights in times of crisis. In essence, they would be asserting a belief in a higher legal entitlement to redistribute essential goods to those in need.
(b) If he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it
Groups may also be able to contend that they believed the retail owners would hypothetically consent to the appropriation if they were fully aware of the circumstances of widespread poverty and hunger. They might argue that, in a truly just society, large corporations should willingly give up some property to meet the basic needs of the disadvantaged. In other words, they would be claiming a belief that the owners would agree with their actions if they understood the gravity of the social crisis.
Ultimately, the ‘This is Rigged’ activists’ actions, while controversial and legally dubious, shine a spotlight on the glaring injustices and inequities that leave millions reliant on food banks in one of the world’s wealthiest nations. They force us to ask uncomfortable questions about the responsibilities of corporations that profit handsomely from rising food prices, and the complicity of a legal system that prioritizes property rights over human welfare. May their example inspire us not to shoplift, but to build a society where no one feels they have to steal to survive – a society of true justice, compassion, and shared abundance for all.
LaPSe of Reason 