Powers for the arrest of citizens: our law of retail crimes must protect the victims, not the criminals – opinion

When placing barriers, the health and safety mentality of the orange cone to begin with, we are telling people not to act, to look the other way, be passive to ignore. I would like to think that if I saw Labor deputy Ginny Andersen being assaulted, he would intervene.

However, Ginny Andersen, Chris Hipkins and sadly New Zealand retail trade, of all people, say no. Give free criminals. As everything is in the police I ignore it. Is that the New Zealand we want? A paradise for thieves and thakes?

The general panorama

New Zealand has experienced a rapid deterioration of law and order in recent years. In fact, he has duplicated.

Police data show that before 2019 there were about 4000 reports every month of retail crimes. This changed quickly during 2019, and now there are Regularly between 10,000 or 11,000 crimes reported each month.

Either the most serious crimes that destroy lives, such as armed robberies or assaults, or repeated robberies that destroy businesses and livelihoods, we know that retailers and consumers are paying a high price for this disorder.

The biggest challenge we face is a perception of criminals that they are untouchable, which there are no consequences for their actions. That police will not respond and even if they do, the courts will let them go.

This sense of impunity damages us all. Violence intensifies and encourages more criminals to make more crimes, because they know they can go out with their own.

This must stop. And that focuses on our work on the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crimes, creating a zero tolerance response to retail crime.

Both the defense of the proposals of properties that we are discussing, as our future work that I hope to speak soon, are designed with the same objective in mind: create a zero tolerance response to retail crime. One that ensures that criminals know that they will be trapped if they offend, and that they will face real consequences.

This is our best opportunity to break the offender cycle repeated and restore the law and order, to return to the country where we were only six years ago.

SOr what has the government agreed?

I am proud of the first steps we have taken to build a zero tolerance response. Our ads about citizens’ arrests try to empower crime victims to defend themselves and their properties, and to ensure that the legal system supports victims when they do.

No one knows how they will react when they are offended.

Many people will choose not to intervene because it is not safe to do so. Many stores will have policies to prevent intervention. That is understandable and will not change.

Our proposals do not make anyone anything. And I don’t want to see any retail intervene where they would be put at risk or their clients.

However, the question I ask is this: should our laws protect the victims of crime or should criminals protect?

Should victims be at risk of civil or criminal liability if they take reasonable measures to protect themselves and their properties?

This is about these proposals. Our proposals ensure that the legal system properly protects the victims of the crime who make a decision, in the heat of the moment, to act reasonably in the defense of themselves and its property.

These changes are not radical. In fact, all our proposals make is align our laws more closely with those of Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.

Our proposals are not really new to New Zealand. We already have arrest powers for citizens in books. But our existing laws are inconsistent, complex, confusing and outdated.

Our existing laws leave gaps that expose victims of retail crimes to a possible legal responsibility if they act in defense of themselves or their property. That’s wrong.

And these gaps are absurd. According to the existing law, a retailer would be legally protected if he acted to avoid a thief of stores that was stealing at 9 pm at night, but would not have legal protections if they did five minutes before.

That is just nonsense. And it is not good enough.

Retailers should not be exposed to legal risk if they act reasonably to stop the person who offends them, regardless of the time of day.

Fundamentally, our ads are intended to address these gaps and ensure that all crime victims are protected when they act reasonably in defense of themselves and their properties.

Who can argue with that?

What does this mean for the security industry?

These proposals refer to the protections available for each New Zealand. Do not create specific arrest powers that regulate and protect the actions of security guards.

I know that the industry is working hard to proposals that would improve the level of training and capacities of security guards. I believe that this work is immensely important, and the ministerial action group supports these efforts as much as possible.

The work of Security Guards is key to delivering the zero tolerance response that we want to create. Support greater training, standardization and professionalization throughout the security industry at all levels of the guards.

The work we announce this week is just a first step. I hope to see how we can work better with the security industry during the next months to increase capacity, training, professionalism and, ultimately, the powers of security guards.