Employers risk significant legal liability if staff confront suspected shoplifters, a solicitor has told HRreview, even where employees act with good intentions, as a high-profile dismissal in the retail sector continues to draw scrutiny.
The case has brought renewed focus on how organisations enforce health and safety policies, with legal experts warning that failing to act consistently could undermine an employer’s ability to defend itself if serious harm occurs.
It follows the dismissal of Walker Smith, 54, a supermarket worker with 17 years’ service, after he intervened in a shoplifting incident at a Waitrose store in Clapham Junction in South London.
Tussle with shoplifter
Smith said he grabbed a bag being used by a suspected shoplifter attempting to steal Easter eggs, leading to a brief struggle before the individual fled. Some items fell to the floor, and he later admitted throwing a piece of broken chocolate in frustration. He apologised to his manager, but the matter was escalated and he was dismissed shortly afterwards.
Waitrose, part of the John Lewis Partnership, said its policies were designed to prioritise staff safety above all else. It said in a statement: “There is a serious danger to life in tackling shoplifters. We refuse to put anyone’s life at risk and that’s why we have policies in place that are very clearly understood and must be strictly followed.
“As a responsible employer, we never want to be in a position where we are notifying families of a tragedy because someone tried to stop a theft. Nothing we sell is worth risking lives for.”
The retailer added: “The reporting on this does not cover the full facts of the situation. While we would never be able to discuss an individual case, we can assure you the correct process is being followed, which includes a standard appeals procedure.”
Legal duty drives employer action
Nicole Humphreys, a partner at Mayo Wynne Baxter, a UK-based law firm, told HRreview that the decision might appear harsh but reflected strict legal obligations on employers.
She said dismissing Smith was a heavy-handed response that many would find uncomfortable. “However, it is important to understand why Waitrose has taken this action,” she said.
She explained that employers are required to assess foreseeable risks and implement measures to protect staff. “Employers are under a legal duty, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, to ensure the health and safety of their employees, to assess foreseeable risks and to implement appropriate control measures,” she said.
She warned that confronting suspected shoplifters carries a high risk of violence. “If, for example, a suspected shoplifter were to fight back and seriously injure or kill a member of staff, Waitrose could be exposed to significant legal liability,” she said.
Consistency in enforcement under scrutiny
The case has raised questions about how strictly employers must enforce safety policies to remain compliant with their legal duties.
Humphreys said failing to act when employees breach such rules could weaken an organisation’s position. She said employers must demonstrate that policies are actively enforced. “That would undermine its ability to defend its procedures if the worst were to happen,” she said.
She added that employers must consider the consequences of inaction. “The obvious and troubling question for any employer is: what if next time an employee is fatally wounded?”
Political pressure and public reaction
The dismissal has attracted political attention, with shadow home secretary Chris Philp calling for Smith to be reinstated, saying that Waitrose acted “disgracefully” and arguing the decision sends the wrong message about tackling retail crime.
Reform UK Nigel Farage also criticised the case, reflecting wider concern about shoplifting and enforcement. “We are now a country that favours criminals over law enforcers,” he said on social media platform X.
Smith said he had acted out of frustration at repeated thefts, describing incidents as occurring “every hour of every day for the last five years” in the store.
The case has prompted a strong public response, with financial and employment support offered to Smith following his dismissal.
The supermarket chain Iceland has offered him a role after the incident drew widespread attention. Its executive chairman, Richard Walker, invited Smith to join the business, and the company has confirmed it has been in contact with him.
A public fundraiser has also been launched to support Smith with living costs, raising more than £7,500 at the time of writing.
Smith said he was now focused on finding work and thanked supporters in a social media post. “I didn’t think it would blow up like this but now it has my priority is getting a job. I’m based in Clapham Junction, so if you or anyone you know is looking for a reliable, conscientious employee please reach out,” he said.
Balancing safety and retail crime concerns
Humphreys said strict “no approach” policies could have unintended consequences, particularly in a retail environment where theft is perceived to be increasing.
She said such policies might embolden offenders who know they are unlikely to be challenged, but she stressed that safety must take priority. “However, however frustrating it may be, employees place themselves in serious danger if they take matters into their own hands,” she said.
She added that responsibility ultimately rests with the employer if harm occurs. “From a health and safety perspective, the policy is therefore not about protecting stock, but about protecting lives.”
Wider implications for employers
The case illustrates a broader dilemma for employers balancing staff safety, legal risk and operational pressures. Retailers face rising levels of shoplifting, but legal obligations mean that preventing harm to employees must take precedence.
Experts say that for HR teams, the situation reinforces the need for clear policies, regular training and consistent enforcement, particularly in roles where staff may feel compelled to intervene.
It also raises questions about how organisations support employees who act outside policy, but with intent to protect their workplace, and how disciplinary decisions are perceived both internally and publicly.
William Furney is a Managing Editor at Black and White Trading Ltd based in Kingston upon Hull, UK. He is a prolific author and contributor at Workplace Wellbeing Professional, with over 127 published posts covering HR, employee engagement, and workplace wellbeing topics. His writing focuses on contemporary employment issues including pension schemes, employee health, financial struggles affecting workers, and broader workplace trends.
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
