On February 26, 2025, the New Zealand government announced it would introduce legislative amendments to better enable citizens and businesses to intervene to stop offenses and to restrain persons suspected of shoplifting. The changes were recommended by an advisory group for victims of retail crime established by the government in July 2024 to provide “specific proposals to address urgent challenges in retail crime.”
In a press release, the minister of justice and associate minister listed the proposed reforms:
- Amending the Crimes Act so that citizens can intervene to stop any Crimes Act offence at any time of the day.
- Requiring that a person making an arrest contact Police and follow Police instructions.
- Clarifying that restraints can be used, when reasonable, when making an arrest.
- Changing the defence of property provisions to the Crimes Act so it is clear that reasonable force may be used.
The justice minister explained that currently, under the Crimes Act 1961, retailers and security guards are not protected from civil or criminal liability if they arrest and detain a person stealing goods valued at less than NZ$1,000 (around US$560) during the day. He added that “[r]etail crime increased 85 per cent between 2019 and 2023, including a 91 per cent increase in victimisations relating to theft.”
Section 35 of the Crimes Act states,
Every one is justified in arresting without warrant—
(a) any person whom he or she finds committing any offence against this Act for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years’ imprisonment:
(b) any person whom he or she finds by night committing any offence against this Act.
Night is defined as between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. In terms of retail theft, under section 223, theft of property worth more than NZ$1,000 is punished by imprisonment for up to seven years. If the property is worth NZ$500 to NZ$1,000, the punishment is imprisonment for up to one year, while for property valued at less than NZ$500, an offender can be imprisoned for up to three months.
Section 36 provides that “[e]very one is protected from criminal responsibility for arresting without warrant any person whom he or she finds by night in circumstances affording reasonable and probable grounds for believing that that person is committing an offence against this Act.”
Section 37 protects from criminal liability a person who arrests someone he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to have committed an offense. Section 39 protects the arresting person from criminal liability for using “such force as may be necessary to overcome any force used in resisting” such arrest. Section 40 allows the use of force to prevent a person’s escape.
Provisions on the defense of moveable property are contained in sections 52 to 54 of the act. A person is protected from criminal responsibility for using reasonable force to prevent the theft of movable property, provided he or she does not “strike or do bodily harm to the trespasser.”
Retail and law enforcement groups provided initial comments on the proposals to the media. The chief executive of Retail NZ, the main retailers association in New Zealand, said that feedback from member businesses was that “they did not want to physically engage with customers” in their stores, and that when they have, “people have got hurt and they’ve died.” The president of the Police Association said that the proposed reforms were “risky and unnecessary” and that it is not worth “getting hurt, or even killed, for a few dollars or some cigarettes.” The Employers and Manufacturers Association also pointed to increased health and safety risks for retail workers.
Legal experts discussed the complex implications of the proposals, including the potential use of the arrest powers against young people, who have extra protections in the criminal justice system; the possible breadth of the changes beyond the retail context; and difficulties in determining what can be considered reasonable force in different situations.
The chairperson of the advisory group for retail crime victims that recommended the changes said that the current law was outdated, confusing, and restrictive, and leaves retailers unprotected. He noted the changes are “not asking that you must arrest. But I want to tell people that the law is on your side. The law is on the side of the victims, and you don’t have to use it.”
Kelly Buchanan, Law Library of Congress
March 4, 2025
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.