Some more thoughts about National’s vigilante justice policy

Written By: - Date published: 8:44 am, February 28th, 2025 - 16 comments
Categories: crime, law, law and "order", national, paul goldsmith, same old national - Tags:

A couple of thoughts crossed my mind as I reviewed National’s latest law and order announcement.

First up I don’t know how many people will actually exercise their right to vigilante justice.

I have practiced law now for 40 years and spent lots and lots of time in District Courts. It is very rare for citizens to get involved. I can recall the very odd case where a person has been detained by others before the police arrived but these cases are rare.

Maybe the new law will give people who are really angry about crime the chance to don their capes and be heroes. Most people will not bother doing this. I suspect that those that do will generally also think that Donald Trump is a good guy.

Secondly the effect on young people is of major concern.

Because the law relating to arresting young people is complex.

The general idea is that if a young person gets into trouble there should be a reference to Oranga Tamariki, alternative action considered, sometimes a family group conference to see if the matter can be resolved outside of Court, and rarely the matter should be filed in Court and dealt with by a Judge.

The system works. Youth crime has been declining for years.

There is power for Police to arrest and refer the matter immediately to the Courts.

But to do so there is a rather stringent test they have to meet.

They are not allowed to arrest a young person unless they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that this is required to ensure the young person will show up to Court OR it will stop the young person committing further offences OR it will prevent the loss or destruction of evidence relating to an offence committed by the young person or an offence that the enforcement officer has reasonable cause to suspect the young person of having committed OR prevent interference with any witness in respect of any such offence.

AND there is a further requirement, the Police Officer has to be satisfied that if they proceeded by way of summons it would not achieve the listed purposes.

Sounds complicated?

There is more.

If a Constable arrests a young person they have to report to the Commissioner of Police and advise them about the reason the young person was arrested.

Here is the thing.

On the face of it Security guards or disgruntled shop owners will not have to do this. From the looks of the announcement they can arrest a 14 year old, tie them up and put them in a van and then get the police to come and sort out the mess.

This is a joke.

They have not thought this through. They have thrown some red meat to the people Sunny Kaushal has been stirring up.

I think the effect will be limited. But if a case occurs involving a young person there will be a gross breach of their rights.

It is not only me who thinks the idea is bollocks, to use a very precise legal term.

The Police Union thinks the same.

From Radio New Zealand:

The Police Association has slammed the beefed-up citizen arrest powers proposed by the Government, saying they are highly risky and could have unintended consequences.

The recommendations from a retail crime advisory group would give businesses wider power to detain shoplifters.

However, Police Association president Chris Cahill describes the reforms as risky and unnecessary.

“It’s not worth getting hurt, or even killed, for a few dollars or some cigarettes,” he said.

…

Cahill told Morning Report the changes would actually make life more unsafe for a lot of retailers and members of the public who get involved.

He said police officers are highly trained and equipped to deal with criminals, however, they still suffer assaults.

“The idea that the public can do this safely is just putting them at risk that isn’t necessary,” he said.

…

“We know why its been recommended and we know why certain retailers think it’s a good idea… I think some common sense might prevail when the facts come out”.

That hotbed of Socialist group think the Employer and Manufacturers Association think the same. Again from Radio New Zealand:

The Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) said the expansion of citizens’ arrest powers could increase health and safety risks for retail workers and is unlikely to reduce shoplifting effectively.

EMA Head of Advocacy, Alan McDonald, argued business owners were being encouraged to put themselves and their staff at risk, which goes against the Health and Safety at Work Act.

“Employers must protect their staff from harm, and asking them to restrain or arrest offenders puts them in danger. Health and safety rules apply to all businesses,” McDonald said.

“The impact of theft is often much worse for small businesses, which can’t easily absorb the losses. But the risk of harm to employees and their families is also serious if something goes wrong.”

And Even Retail NZ thinks the proposal is stupid. Again from Radio New Zealand:

Retail NZ Chief Executive, Carolyn Young, shared the concern, worrying about the increase in violence and threats to staff.

She told Morning Report frontline retail workers were often young and in their first job, and “don’t go to work to enforce the law.”

I suspect that in the ranks of the Government there is some incredulity at the proposal.

This policy is unworkable, will put people in danger, and play havoc with current legal arrangements. It is nothing more than the promotion of vigilante justice.

16 comments on “Some more thoughts about National’s vigilante justice policy ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. PsyclingLeft.Always 1
    28 February 2025 at 9:15 am

    When the group of aggressive fascist brown/blackshirts that is Pastor Brian Tamaki's flock, are positively salivating at the opportunity to be "hands on"…that should be all the warning needed.

    Brian Tamaki's enthusiasm among many concerns with new citizen's arrest law

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/543227/brian-tamaki-s-enthusiasm-among-many-concerns-with-new-citizen-s-arrest-law

    IMO of course Paul Goldsmith and cronies would like nothing better than fight, fight. A great distraction for what they are meanwhile doing.

    NAct1. Taking us ever downwards.

  2. Obtrectator 2
    28 February 2025 at 9:58 am

    There was a very short-lived movement in the UK in the late 60s, I forget how much official sanction it had, if any. The tag-line was "have a go" if you saw something criminal going down. It soon disappeared, never to be revived, once the perps began escalating with both weaponry (shooters instead of pickaxe handles) and degree of violence. This current initiative is likely to follow the same sort of path.

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    28 February 2025 at 11:19 am

    Back in the Shipley years there were TV ads urging NZers to become junior Stasi and dob in a bludger…i.e. keep an eye on your Bennie neighbours and pot them if someone stayed the night for instance.

    The vigilante fantasies of some smaller retailers and a few nuttier MPs likewise will cause more trouble than they will ever solve. NZ Police culture is still largely macho, violent, racist and misogynist, but they are sworn and ultimately have some judicial and official oversight and accountability which is more than random citizen arresters will have.

  4. mpledger 4
    28 February 2025 at 11:37 am

    It just seem like another excuse people can use to hurt women and vulnerable people. It will legitimise kidnapping.

  5. Mike the Lefty 5
    28 February 2025 at 1:05 pm

    On a side issue, perhaps National's bill could also tidy up and make clear what rights people have to defend themselves against attack, vandalism, etc. If this bill is truly about citizens' rights then this should be part of it.

    It should not be an offence to defend yourself with reasonable force, but there are so many interpretations on this it is hard to know what is truth and what is fiction.

    I am not one of the "shoot first and ask questions later" self-appointed sheriffs but if someone tries to attack me or my family then legal repercussions will not be high on my priority list.

  6. Ad 6
    28 February 2025 at 3:44 pm

    What Cabinet numpty thought this was a good idea? Only takes just one "arrest" to go wrong and you have a needless death, and right after that the idea becomes even harder than televising a boot camp recalcitrants' tears.

  7. thinker 7
    28 February 2025 at 4:50 pm

    Think it was RNZ where Brian Tamaki thought it would be good for his Man Up programme. Whatever his particular thoughts, it does boggle the mind as to vigilante groups roaming like in the American Graffiti movie, looking for a legal 'rumble'.

  8. SPC 8
    28 February 2025 at 6:06 pm

    This is worse than people yet realise.

    At the moment this is about targeting the big retailers/retailer, not the wider public.

    The big retailers have Aurora and security guards – and ID perps and shut them out

    This could result in a crime wave that makes it harder to identify those involved.

  9. aj 9
    28 February 2025 at 8:44 pm

    On the upside, a citizen could arrest anyone driving up the steps of parliament.

  10. Incognito 10
    28 February 2025 at 9:18 pm

    Two academic law experts, Andrew Geddis and Henry Benson-Pope, point out the obvious and perhaps not so obvious problems with the bizarre proposals around citizen’s arrest.

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/27-02-2025/the-many-many-problems-with-the-plan-to-expand-citizens-arrest-powers

    The Coalition appears to be flooding the zone, with shit and just about anything – are the numbers that bad?