City of London Police Charge Five in Shoplifting and Bag Theft Crackdown

Key Points

• City of London Police arrested and charged five people following a targeted operation against shoplifting, bag theft and phone snatching on 7 October 2026.
• Both uniformed and plain-clothed officers conducted patrols across the Square Mile, focusing on locations identified as high-risk areas for acquisitive crime.
• The five defendants face charges relating to theft from shops and bag theft, according to the police statement.
• City of London Police figures show that 31 per cent of the 1,400 shoplifting offences recorded in 2025/26 resulted in an arrest, charge or conviction.
• The reported positive-outcome rate compares with a national average of 18.5 per cent for shoplifting offences in England and Wales.
• Police worked with Metropolitan Police officers during the operation, and no phone snatches were reported in the City of London during the 24-hour period.
• The operation follows separate cases in which Glenda Campbell received an eight-week prison sentence and Michael Hollingsworth was sentenced to four months in jail for shoplifting-related offences.
• The crackdown forms part of the City of London Police’s Safer City Streets initiative, which combines visible policing, intelligence-led patrols, technology and partnerships with businesses and local communities.

The report leads with the most significant developments: the five arrests and charges, the police operation, and the recorded outcomes. It then examines the relevant crime figures, previous prosecutions, official statements and the wider Safer City Streets initiative.

The Londoner News (TLN)  October 12, 2026 – City of London Police have arrested and charged five people following a targeted crackdown on shoplifting and bag theft across the Square Mile. The operation, conducted on 7 October, involved uniformed and plain-clothed officers patrolling high-crime locations, engaging with businesses and working alongside the Metropolitan Police to address phone theft. The force reported that no phone snatches occurred in the City during the 24-hour period. The action forms part of its wider Safer City Streets initiative, which combines visible policing, intelligence-led enforcement and business partnerships to prevent theft and improve public safety.

Who has been charged following the City of London police operation?

According to the City of London Police’s official statement, five people were arrested and charged following the intensification day on 7 October 2026. The operation targeted acquisitive crime, a category that includes offences such as shoplifting and the theft of personal belongings.

The individuals named by the force and the charges reported were:

• Aiden Moriarty, 33, of New Street, Weymouth, charged with theft from a shop.
• David Gross, 62, of Radnor Street, Islington, charged with theft from a shop.
• Khodor Tahir, 44, of Kingsland Road, Hackney, charged with theft from a shop.
• Luis Benjomin, 58, of Stanford Place, Southwark, charged with bag theft.
• Jhon Contreras, 35, of no fixed abode, charged with bag theft.

The reported charges cover three alleged shop theft offences and two alleged bag theft offences. The police statement identifies the charges brought against the five individuals but does not establish their guilt. Any criminal proceedings must follow the applicable legal process.

The operation concentrated on detecting suspected offenders, preventing theft and supporting businesses affected by crime. By deploying officers in uniform and plain clothes, the force sought to combine a visible police presence with efforts to identify suspected offenders in locations where theft was considered a particular concern.

The operation also formed part of a continuing policing approach rather than an isolated enforcement exercise. City of London Police has identified retail crime, personal theft and phone snatching as areas requiring targeted intervention, supported by intelligence and cooperation with businesses.

How did officers target shoplifting, bag theft and phone snatching?

The police deployed uniformed and plain-clothed officers across the Square Mile on 7 October. Their activities included proactive patrols, engagement with businesses and monitoring key locations.

Uniformed patrols provide a visible presence in public areas and can help members of the public and business staff identify officers who may be approached for assistance. Plain-clothed officers can operate in locations where suspected offenders might otherwise be less likely to notice police activity.

The stated objectives included detecting theft, apprehending suspected offenders and preventing further offences. Officers also worked with businesses, reflecting the role that retailers and other commercial organisations can play in reporting incidents and providing information relevant to investigations.

Phone snatching was another focus of the operation. City of London Police worked closely with Metropolitan Police officers to address phone theft across the Square Mile.

According to the force, no phone snatches were reported in the City of London during the 24-hour period covered by the operation. This is a specific reported outcome for that period, rather than evidence on its own of a long-term reduction in phone theft.

The operation’s combination of patrols, business engagement and inter-force cooperation reflects the approach outlined in the force’s Safer City Streets initiative. The initiative places emphasis on deploying resources to locations identified through crime intelligence and maintaining partnerships with businesses and communities.

What do the shoplifting figures reveal about police outcomes in the City of London?

The force’s published figures indicate that 31 per cent of the 1,400 shoplifting offences recorded in the City of London during the 2025/26 period resulted in a positive outcome.

For the purposes of the figures cited by police, a positive outcome means an arrest, charge or conviction. The measure therefore covers several stages of criminal justice and should not be interpreted as meaning that every case resulted in a conviction.

The reported rate compares with a national average of 18.5 per cent for shoplifting offences in England and Wales.

The difference between the two figures is 12.5 percentage points. The City of London rate is also approximately 1.7 times the national average, based on the published percentages.

The statistics provide a measure of how frequently reported shoplifting offences resulted in one of the specified outcomes. They do not, by themselves, establish how many thefts occurred but were never reported, nor do they demonstrate that every police operation contributed equally to the overall result.

In a report published on 19 May 2026, the City of London Police described the figures as evidence of its approach to retail crime, which includes visible neighbourhood patrols, advanced CCTV and intelligence-led enforcement. ITV News London also reported the 31 per cent figure and the comparison with the national rate in its coverage of the force’s crackdown on shoplifting.

The figures are relevant to retailers because the outcome of a reported theft can affect how businesses assess the effectiveness of reporting incidents and cooperating with police. They also provide context for the force’s decision to continue targeting acquisitive crime.

However, the comparison should be understood within the limits of the data presented. The City of London figure concerns the offences recorded by the local force, while the national figure covers England and Wales. Differences in local circumstances, reporting patterns and policing activity may affect comparisons between areas.

The latest operation adds five further charges to the force’s reported enforcement activity, but the supplied statement does not specify how these five cases will affect the overall outcome rate.

What previous shoplifting prosecutions preceded the October crackdown?

The 7 October operation followed two separate shoplifting cases in which defendants received custodial sentences earlier in the month, according to City of London Police.

What happened in the Glenda Campbell case?

Glenda Campbell, 51, of no fixed abode, was sentenced to eight weeks in prison for theft and breaching a Criminal Behaviour Order that prohibited her from entering the Square Mile.

The police statement said the incident took place at a luxury beauty store in Broadgate on 7 September 2026 at approximately 4.50 pm. Campbell was caught on CCTV taking three bottles of perfume with a combined value of £510.

Store staff attempted to stop her as she left the premises. The subsequent sentence covered both the theft and the breach of the court order.

The case demonstrates how restrictions imposed through a Criminal Behaviour Order can form part of the legal response to offending. Such orders can impose specific prohibitions, and breaching an applicable order may constitute a separate offence.

The police statement did not provide further details about the proceedings or identify the court that imposed the sentence.

Why was Michael Hollingsworth sentenced to four months in jail?

Michael Hollingsworth, 43, of no fixed abode, received a four-month prison sentence for shoplifting.

According to the force, officers from the Proactive Acquisitive Crime Team saw Hollingsworth acting suspiciously on 28 September 2026. When they stopped him, they found products stolen from a shop in Moorgate in his possession.

The police statement does not specify the value of the recovered products or provide further details about the sentencing proceedings.

Both cases preceded the latest operation and illustrate the range of enforcement activity described by the force, from proactive street patrols and investigations to criminal proceedings resulting in custodial sentences.

They also show why the police have emphasised identifying suspected repeat offenders and using intelligence-led operations. However, the information published does not establish a direct connection between either case and the five people charged on 7 October.

What have City of London Police officials said about the crackdown?

Sergeant James Wood, of the Proactive Acquisitive Crime Team at City of London Police, said the results demonstrated the force’s commitment to tackling acquisitive crime and targeting people suspected of entering the City to steal.

He explained that officers had worked in uniform and plain clothes to identify suspected offenders, support businesses and disrupt criminal activity.

Wood also highlighted the consequences that shoplifting, bag theft and phone snatching can have for victims and businesses. He said the force would continue to use intelligence-led operations to identify and arrest those responsible.

His comments outline the operational priorities behind the crackdown: identifying suspected offenders, supporting commercial premises and deploying officers based on information about crime.

Tijs Broeke, chair of the City of London Police Authority Board, also welcomed the operation. He said it demonstrated the value of a dedicated police force protecting businesses, workers, residents and visitors.

Broeke said the five charges sent a message that theft would not be tolerated. At the same time, he cautioned against complacency despite the reported fall in theft, emphasising focused enforcement and partnerships with the private sector.

The police authority chair’s remarks reflect the importance placed on maintaining confidence among the people who work, live and conduct business in the City.

Neither official’s statement establishes that theft has been eliminated or that one day of enforcement can guarantee a sustained reduction. The force’s published figures and the reported outcomes of the operation instead provide a basis for assessing its continuing approach.

How does the Safer City Streets initiative support crime prevention?

The October operation forms part of the City of London Police’s Safer City Streets initiative, which was launched in May 2026.

According to the force’s launch announcement, the programme brings together visible neighbourhood policing, intelligence-led hotspot patrols, technology and partnerships with businesses and communities.

One element of the initiative is the use of newly branded police boxes across the Square Mile. The force described these as visible points reinforcing its neighbourhood presence and response capability.

The initiative also draws on the City’s CCTV network. Police said cameras and control-room staff can help track suspected offenders, direct resources towards incidents and support investigations.

Another element is hotspot policing, under which officers receive data-led briefings about where and when patrols should be conducted. The aim is to concentrate resources in locations where intelligence indicates that crime prevention activity may have the greatest effect.

The force also identified its Image Recognition and Identification System, known as IRIS, as a tool for identifying suspects through searchable, tagged images.

These measures form part of a wider strategy intended to prevent offending, identify suspected offenders and make public spaces safer for people using the City.

What results has hotspot policing produced?

In its May 2026 announcement, City of London Police reported changes in selected hotspot areas between February 2025 and February 2026.

The force said:

• Violence and sexual offences fell by 10 per cent.
• Personal robbery and snatch offences fell by 7 per cent.
• Business robbery and retail crime fell by 22 per cent.
• Overall crime fell by 15 per cent in the identified hotspots.

These are figures reported by the force for the specified locations and period. They should not automatically be applied to every part of the City or treated as proof that the October operation produced the same results.

The May announcement also referred to the force’s investment in crime-data analysis and additional cameras in hotspot areas. It said its approach relied on the combination of visible patrols, CCTV, specialist retail crime teams and technology to identify offenders.

The broader strategy therefore extends beyond arresting suspects after individual incidents. It also aims to improve prevention, strengthen the identification of offenders and maintain cooperation between the police and businesses.

Why is retail theft an important issue for City businesses and visitors?

The City of London serves several groups that may be affected by acquisitive crime, including retail businesses, office workers, residents, commuters and visitors.

For retailers, shoplifting can result in direct losses of merchandise and additional demands on staff who must report incidents, preserve relevant evidence and cooperate with investigations. The reported Campbell case, involving perfume valued at £510, provides a specific example of the financial value of goods involved in an individual incident.

Bag theft and phone snatching present different risks. They can deprive victims of personal belongings and, depending on what is stolen, may also result in the loss of access to communications, payment methods or other important information.

The police operation addressed these offences together because they fall within the wider category of acquisitive crime. Nevertheless, the individual offences involve different circumstances and should not be treated as interchangeable.

Cooperation between police and businesses is a central part of the Safer City Streets approach. Business staff may be able to report incidents, provide information and assist investigations, while police can use intelligence and surveillance resources to direct patrols.

The 31 per cent positive-outcome rate reported for City shoplifting offences in 2025/26 is relevant to this relationship. The force has argued that businesses are more likely to report offences and cooperate when they have confidence that reports will be acted upon.

However, maintaining that confidence depends on more than the outcome of a single operation. The figures published by the force cover a wider period, while the five charges announced after the October action represent a specific set of cases.

The operation’s long-term significance will therefore depend on the results of continued enforcement and the extent to which businesses and members of the public continue to report theft.

Background: How has the City of London developed its approach to theft?

City of London Police introduced the Safer City Streets initiative in May 2026 amid efforts to strengthen its response to shoplifting and other offences affecting businesses and the public.

The programme was announced alongside figures showing that 31 per cent of 1,400 shoplifting offences recorded in 2025/26 had resulted in an arrest, charge or conviction, compared with a reported national average of 18.5 per cent.

The force identified neighbourhood policing, hotspot patrols, CCTV, technology and business partnerships as central components of the programme.

Its May announcement also reported reductions in several categories of crime across selected hotspot areas over the February 2025 to February 2026 period. Those figures provided the force’s stated context for continuing targeted patrols and other preventive measures.

The 7 October operation followed this wider programme, with officers focusing on shoplifting, bag theft and phone snatching. The announcement of five charges came alongside details of the Campbell and Hollingsworth sentencing cases, illustrating the range of enforcement measures being pursued.

The available information does not establish that all these cases arose from the same investigation or operation. They are separate developments presented by the force as part of its broader efforts to address theft.

Prediction: How could the crackdown affect businesses, workers and visitors?

The immediate outcome is that five people have been charged following a targeted police operation. The reported absence of phone snatches during the 24-hour period also provides a specific short-term result, although it does not establish a lasting change in phone theft.

For retail businesses, continued targeted patrols and police engagement could make it easier to report incidents and provide information relevant to investigations. The practical effect will depend on whether enforcement continues and whether reported offences lead to appropriate outcomes.

For workers, commuters and visitors, visible patrols and attention to high-risk locations may provide additional reassurance. However, the operation does not remove the need to take reasonable precautions with phones, bags and other valuables.

For residents and the wider City community, the key measure will be whether the policing strategy delivers sustained improvements rather than isolated enforcement results. The reported crime figures provide a starting point, but continued monitoring is necessary to establish whether reductions persist.

For law enforcement, cooperation between City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police may help coordinate efforts against phone theft and other offences across their respective areas. The effectiveness of that cooperation will need to be assessed through further reported outcomes.