Citizen’s arrest: End to the ‘paradise for thieves’ or opening Pandora’s box?
Friday, 28 February 2025
What do you think about the proposed new citizen’s arrest law? Have your say in the comments below.
The aim of the new citizen’s arrest legislation is simple ‒ to “give Kiwi businesses additional tools to deal with those that are robbing them of their livelihood”.
But, the proposal has been met with virtually unanimous criticism.
From police officers, who fear it poses “huge safety risks”, to a human rights lawyer, who has warned it could open a “Pandora’s box of chaos”, the feedback is clear: this is not a good idea.
Yet the man behind the drive for reform, chairman of the Ministerial Advisory Group Sunny Kaushal, has doubled down. For Kaushal, it’s time New Zealand becomes a “self-policing society”.
The proposed changes
On Wednesday, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced his intention to give businesses more power to detain those stealing from them.
Under existing laws, anyone can make an “arrest” between 9pm and 6am where there are reasonable grounds for believing a person is committing an offence. Anyone can also make an arrest during the day when they believe a person committed a crime publishable by more than three years’ imprisonment.
Outside of that, arrests can only be made by police officers and, in rare circumstances, officials like immigration officers. These powers are written into statute and set into motion a strict chain of rights that a detained person is afforded.
The revamped law would include four reforms:
Amending the Crimes Act to allow citizens to stop an offender at any time of the day;
Clarifying that restraints can be used when reasonable during an arrest;
Changing the defence of property provisions to make it clear that reasonable force may be used; and
Requiring that a person making an arrest contact police and follow their instructions.
“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 $1000 during the day,” Goldsmith said.
But when pushed during a press conference for more details, it became increasingly clear the success of the proposed reforms would be dictated by the fine print.
What is “reasonable” force? “Not necessarily a headlock or anything like that, it’s just holding them steady,” according to Goldsmith.
Is there an age threshold? “It applies equally to young people,” says Goldsmith. This is important because the age of criminal responsibility in New Zealand is 10, with extra protections afforded to anyone under 18 who is arrested.
Does it invite vigilantism? “It’s a set of tools that retailers can use if they want to, it’s not compulsory,” Goldsmith says.
How long a retailer can detain a person they believed has stolen from them if police are unable to attend immediately isn’t clear, nor is whether a retailer can use the powers in a public place if the believed offender has travelled out of their shop.
Where did the proposal come from?
Goldsmith’s proposal forms part of a suite of recommendations generated by a retail crime advisory group, formed in July 2024 to help the Government achieve its goal of 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029.
The Ministerial Advisory Group is headed by the chairperson of the dairy and business owners group, Sunny Kaushal.
Speaking to The Post the day after Goldsmith’s announcement, Kaushal remained steadfast in his view the proposed changes were a positive thing.
“When you try and bring change, there will be people who like it and there will be people who don’t,” he said.
Kaushal said Aotearoa had become a “paradise for thugs and thieves” and it was time to bring the the “great Kiwi attitude of giving it a go” into law enforcement.
“The reality is New Zealand has become a self-policing society because it has to be. With one police officer to every 500 Kiwis, police can’t be everywhere.”
So what research did Kaushal undertake before presenting the proposal to the minister?
“We’ve consulted with members who come from different industries, gone out to stakeholders, different associations, victims of crime, small shop owners, dairy and business owners,” he said.
Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young, also on the Ministerial Advisory Group, told The Post she wasn’t aware of any retailers who thought the proposal was a good idea.
Police Association president Chris Cahill also questioned whether police had been consulted on the proposal.
Kaushal rejected claims the proposal was encouraging vigilantism and increased risks for retailers.
“Shopkeepers will now be able to decide how to act in certain circumstances. The law as it stands is outdated and not reflective of the reality of life in New Zealand.”
The real life consequences
Examples of retailers who try to stop thieving from their stores and are met with a violent response abound.
One such example comes after the owner of Pooja Jewellers in Papatoetoe was hit over the head with a hammer multiple times during an armed robbery.
Gurdeep Singh, 50, suffered a fractured skull and his son, Sunny Singh, drove the attackers out of the store when he brandished a ceremonial sword.
When asked by The Post about the proposed reforms to citizen arrest powers, Sunny Singh wasn’t convinced.
“It would only work if someone didn’t come with a weapon. I can’t pin someone down if they’re holding a hammer or an axe,” he said.
Eight months on, Gurdeep is still recovering from his head injury.
At the most extreme end is fear that the proposed reforms result in death, such as was the case for 34-year-old Janak Patel.
In November 2022, Patel was killed by a masked robber who had stolen the cash register from the Auckland dairy he was watching for friends.
Patel chased after the robber, later identified as Frederick Hobson, with a hockey stick before Hobson stabbed him three times.
As Young said: “No-one’s life is worth a few hundred dollars”.
At the other end of the spectrum, it’s not hard to find examples of instances where members of the public endeavouring to restrain someone has gone horribly wrong.
For instance, four people were charged ‒ but later acquitted ‒ with manslaughter after the death of Kaimana Paul, 39, who was held down on the footpath after being removed from a bar in Upper Hutt in September 2019. The Crown alleged Paul died from compression asphyxia.
A lawyer, a cop and a CEO weigh in
Within minutes of the proposed reforms being announced, the criticisms began.
For human rights lawyer Michael Bott, the revamped law risks “opening the Pandora’s box of chaos”.
“Police have extensive specialised training and equipment for making arrests. They have obligations in terms of evidence and are aware of the rights that become attached to a person as soon as they’re arrested,” he said.
“But the young person working behind the counter at a diary in an impoverished part of South Auckland won’t have this training.”
The proposal also encouraged retailers to arm themselves, Bott believed, which would lead to offenders increasingly arming themselves, resulting in a “violence spiral”.
“We all sympathise with shop owners who are the subject of thefts, but the real drivers of theft are extreme poverty and hunger.”
Bott also argued the proposed changes made the law ripe for abuse and could be “used by agenda of chaos to enact their own agenda”.
One frontline police officer from Auckland, who The Post agreed not to name to protect his employment, said the fear was that offenders would arm themselves with the intention of “fighting back”.
“Staff members also won’t be getting the proper training. They’ll have good intentions, but there are huge safety risks. We’ve already seen what happens when they fight back,” the officer warned.
Carolyn Young pointed to Destiny Church’s Brian Tamaki’s post on X saying he was “excited” that Man Up - an anti-domestic violence programme run by church - would have increased powers to police as precisely what was wrong with the amendments.
The ‘Man Up’ group came under intense scrutiny after around 30 adults and young children had to be barricaded into a room in a library in West Auckland earlier this month when they turned up at a Pride Festival Event .
“Brian Tamaki’s statement is exactly the sort of encouragement that we don’t want to see in New Zealand society.”
Comments are moderated during working hours and may not appear immediately.