It's a very interesting and complex subject which perhaps needs to be broken down into smaller, more bite-size morsels. I'm particularly interested in how the nature of crime changed with circumstances as the war progressed. I hope we can keep this thread going, meanwhile please accept my apologies if I repeat some of what you've already stated.

As you say, the crime rate greatly increased and your quoted figure of a 57% increase in crime between 1939 and 1945 is almost certainly an underestimate given the difficulty of gathering statistics in wartime. And of course while much of this was due to increased opportunities for crime, a lot was simply because the number of crimes for which one could be charged had also increased. Many otherwise law-abiding people could unexpectedly - by accident or carelessness, temptation or desperation - suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law; often for the first time in their life. With the passing of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill on 24 August 1939 a whole raft of additional (sometimes strange and unusual) laws suddenly came into force, while at the same time the authorities were given immediate sweeping new powers to enter and search any properties; to demand identity papers; to prosecute and punish offenders; to detain and withhold trial of those whose detention 'appears expedient'; and to suspend or alter any existing laws.

Actually though in the first year of the war the incidence of 'regular' crimes by what one might call 'career criminals' fell, at least in and around London. Rates of individual-on-individual crime, such as house-burglary, pick-pocketing, assault, rape and murder - all seem to have fallen, at least for several months. In the opinion of the Chief Constable of Essex this was, "probably due to the fact that a large number of youthful offenders who previously operated from the East end ... are now serving with HM Forces". There was also probably an influence from the greatly increased surveillance that was in place, whether by the police and ARP wardens looking for errant chinks of light, or by self-appointed busy-bodies peering through the same chinks in their curtains, on the lookout for nefarious activity amongst their neighbours in the amateur hunt for spies, saboteurs, racketeers and spivs. So while the surge in overall crime was certainly a consequence of the unique nature of the war, much of this was what might be called 'victimless' crime.  

Overall criminal prosecutions largely paralleled the course and anxieties of the War. In the first year, especially during the so-called Phoney War period, most charges related to contraventions of blackout regulations - in 1940 alone 300,000 people were charged with this - or to 'profiteering' by charging more than the government-regulated price for goods. When rationing was introduced in December 1940 a whole new range of criminal offences came before the courts (of which a bit more later). After the fall of France and the evacuation of Dunkirk 'defeatist' talk was taken very seriously, so for example voicing the opinion in a public place that "We can never win the war" could result in a fine or even a prison sentence. Then with the threat of invasion anything that had a whiff of 'fifth column' activity, including inadvertently entering any of the restricted zones that had been established around the coast, or leaving a motor vehicle not suitably immobilised (eg by removing the magneto) accounted for a number of prosecutions.

Then during the Blitz looting was treated as a particularly heinous crime, leading to a number of excessive prosecutions such as of the team of rescue personel who, having recovered numerous mutilated bodies from a bombed out pub, attempted to calm their nerves by serving themselves a few tots of whiskey from behind the bar, and so found themselves accused of looting. Nevertheless looting - certainly not a victimless crime  - remained a serious problem as it was not just theft but it also seriously undermined people's morale and resiliance.

As the war relentlessly ground on, productivity became a key issue. The workforce became more tightly regulated and any work behaviour that was seen to act against the national interest was liable to prosecution. Deliberate sabotage was very rare and was always harshly prosecuted, but strikes, absenteeism or refusal to take a job as directed were offences that became gradually more likely to result in prosecution as the war progressed. Pilfering at work was hardly a unique wartime crime but the conditions of the war - shortages, rationing and a ready market for goods in short supply or unobtainable - gave it an unfortunate boost. It was a constant problem but frequently employers were prepared to turn a blind eye to petty pilfering for the sake of good industrial relations and sustained productivity in the face of long hours and difficult, sometimes dangerous, working conditions, and prosecuted only when the scale became unacceptable. Very often prosecutions against in-house theft were orchestrated in relation to the general workforce's level of acceptance - or resistance - of mangement. Thus when a company might push to introduce new working practices, prosecutions for pilfering would likely be stopped, but once the new terms had been largely accepted by the workforce, prosecutions for petty theft would resume.

Rationing offences remained a serious problem throughout the war (and of course rationing only finally ended in 1954), from shopkeepers who kept 'something under the counter' for favoured customers, or who were prepared to take money over the correct rate or not demand ration coupons, to housewives who continued to use the ration book of a deceased relative or sold unused coupons. Selling unused clothing coupons (which was illegal) was a particular issue: if you were so poor as to be unable to afford the clothes the coupons represented, then there must have been a huge temptation to sell your unused coupons and use that cash simply to pay your rent or buy food. Then there was also a whole range of larger scale fraud conducted by dishonest officials in issuing the ration books and handling the returned coupons, and indeed in the widespread printing of counterfeit coupons. The official ration coupons had been hurridly and crudely printed to a considerably lower standard than banknotes (the only thing that really gave the fakes away was the quality of the paper) and inevitably an illegal blackmarket rate of exchange soon became established between easily forged coupons and genuine currency.

Identities could be forged too. The National Registration Act passed on 1 September 1939 made it compulsory for everyone to carry an identity card. The ID card had to be produced on request and without it it was impossible to obtain ration books, to prove ineligibility or otherwise for military service, or to comply with a morass of other wartime regulations. Forged cards found a ready market among those who wanted to avoid call-up, those who had deserted from the Forces and needed a civilian identity, and those who wished, for whatever nefarious purpose, to assume another persona. Meanwhile medical practitioners could be bribed to produce certificates for exemption or discharge from military service, whilst other dishonest officials might be found who could authenticate a claim to having a reserved occupation.


Cartoon by Lawrence (Lawrie) Siggs in 'Punch'.

There was however one section of wartime society that almost never made an appearance before a British judge or magistrate: the US troops who numbered over 1.5 million in the UK by May 1944. British soldiers who broke the law were tried by civilian courts - courts martial were reserved for military transgressions - and it was the same with all Commonwealth and European troops who were in Britain for the duration. The Americans however were not prepared to put their troops under the jurisdiction of British courts, and thus US troops, even if they committed crimes in association with British troops or civilians, remained entirely regulated by US miltary law.