The government will empower retail store owners with more rights to self defence and clearly spell out what staff can and cannot do in case of an attack, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said on Wednesday.
The minister pointed out current laws are ambiguous and archaic, and that store owners must have the confidence that they can protect themselves and their property in case of an attack.
Goldsmith didn’t elaborate on what these rights would be, but indicated rules will be announced soon specifying what and how much action people can take in self defence, what time of day they can do it and how to go about it.
“Currently, no one, including retailers and security guards, is protected from civil or criminal liability if they arrest and detain a person stealing goods valued at less than $1,000 during the day,” he said.
“The operation of the Crimes Act 1961 hinders people from stopping offending as it occurs right in front of them.”
When asked to illustrate how the changes will help retailers in case of a crime, Goldsmith pointed to a scenario where a retailer is facing a shoplifter.
"The retailer should have the right to physically detain the shoplifter and call the police...the existing option [under current rules] is for the retailer to just watch the shoplifter go about the theft," he said.
Currently, citizen’s arrests in New Zealand are restricted to nighttime hours, leaving business owners and security guards legally vulnerable if they intervene during the day.
The incoming rules are largely expected to be based on the recommendations by the crime advisory group the government set up last year. The group’s chair, Sunny Kaushal, has been campaigning for rights of retailers for several years.
In a petition to the government in 2023, before the advisory board was constituted, Kaushal had argued New Zealand’s modern-day self defence laws should be similar to the ones Australia has enacted.
If New Zealand were to take that cue, retailers dealing with theft and violent shoplifting could find themselves with clearer legal grounds to protect themselves, their staff, and their property. But the key issue would remain whether their response was reasonable in the circumstances.
In Australia, a 1987 case set the precedent that self-defence hinges on a two-part test: whether the accused believed their actions were necessary and whether that belief was reasonable. It also established that lethal force is only justifiable if the defendant reasonably fears for their life or serious harm.
Extrapolating that to a retail setting in Australia, a shopkeeper tackling a shoplifter to recover stolen goods might be justified, but using a weapon in response to non-violent theft would likely fail the reasonableness test.
In contrast, in 2004, a man successfully argued self-defense after killing an armed intruder in his home. The court accepted that his fear of serious harm was reasonable.
As per the Australian Criminal Code, an excessive response does not provide full legal immunity but may reduce charges, such as downgrading murder to manslaughter.
Sunny Kaushal described Goldsmith’s announcement today as “a historic moment as the government formally accepts the Defence of Property and Powers to Detain proposal that we put forward”.
“Changing a common law dating back to 1893 is a once-in-a-lifetime achievement, a defining moment in history and a victory for hardworking New Zealanders. I consider this my first gift of 2025 to the community,” he said.
Sunny pointed out while these reforms specifically target retail crime, they also safeguard every law-abiding New Zealander who may step in to prevent a crime in their community.
“The Ministerial Advisory Group that I lead has an ambitious and strategic work programme for 2025, focused on restoring deterrence and delivering real, lasting change.”
ISSUE
