Under current law, a citizen’s arrest cannot be made between 9pm and 6am unless the goods are worth at least $1000. In February 2025, the Justice Minister proposed removing those limits, allowing citizens to make arrests for any offence, at any hour. The plan would also permit suspects to be restrained “where reasonable”, provided police are called immediately and their directions followed.
The law already protects anyone making an arrest who uses only the force reasonably necessary to overcome resistance. Yet retailers – supposedly the beneficiaries – were unconvinced. Shopkeepers have long faced confrontations when challenging thieves, and many warned the new powers would escalate violence. “We’re not trained to deal with armed offenders,” said one retail association spokesman.
Police were equally sceptical. They argued the changes could leave citizens with broader arrest powers than the police themselves. Officers warned of low-level offending spiralling into violence and of the legal grey zone around what counts as “reasonable force”. As usual when governments propose more powers for the public, the spectre of vigilante justice appeared: people tackling someone who forgot to scan a chocolate bar.
By September 2025, officials were already suggesting the proposals be reviewed to prevent abuse.
Trespass Act overhaul
Another front in the crackdown is the 40-year-old Trespass Act. It has long allowed retailers to issue two-year bans on suspected shoplifters. Yet the Minister of Justice claimed that offenders “returned to rob businesses of their livelihoods.” That drew sharp correction: robbery, unlike shoplifting, involves violence or threats and carries up to ten years’ imprisonment.
Nevertheless, the Government floated several amendments:
- Increase trespass bans from two years to three.
- Let franchise chains bar offenders from multiple stores.
- Double fines for refusing to leave or returning while trespassed.
- Double fines for refusing to provide a name or giving false details.
Originally, the Minister wanted five-year bans, but Cabinet scaled it back to three. Even so, the proposals face criticism as disproportionate. A court-supervised trespass period was suggested as a safeguard, particularly for people in rural areas with only one supermarket, or for those with addiction or mental-health problems. The minister rejected that, insisting businesses need stronger tools.
The Ministry of Justice noted that region-wide bans could effectively block someone from accessing any supermarket – with no right of appeal. Police backed court oversight, saying it would simplify prosecutions.
A bill has yet to appear, and questions remain about necessity. The act may be old, but it already works to bar shoplifters from retail premises. Extending trespass periods won’t fix the real problem – the difficulty of enforcing badly served notices.
Privacy problems and the ‘wall of shame’
Retailers frustrated by theft have experimented with another tactic: the “wall of shame”. Photos of alleged shoplifters are pinned in staff rooms or even displayed to customers. Some stores have gone further, posting images online with captions like “Do you know this person?”
That crosses dangerous legal lines. Publishing someone’s photo as an alleged offender is not proof of guilt – it’s an accusation. The Privacy Commissioner has warned that posting such material to cause embarrassment is likely a breach of the Privacy Act 2020.
Three key principles apply. Businesses must take reasonable steps to ensure any personal information is accurate (Principle 8). Data collected for one reason – such as security – can’t be repurposed for another, like public shaming (Principle 10). And disclosure is only allowed for legitimate reasons such as consent or legal obligation (Principle 11).
CCTV footage makes the risk worse. Once posted, it can be copied, shared, and saved indefinitely, even if the original post is deleted. That’s why the commissioner advises retailers to report theft to police rather than play detective online. But if theft becomes an infringement offence – a ticketable matter – police interest may evaporate.
The risks of over-correction
Behind the legislative tinkering lies a deeper policy confusion. On one hand, the Government proposes reducing the seriousness of theft by moving it out of the Crimes Act. On the other, it wants to expand citizens’ arrest powers and lengthen trespass bans. Both ideas clash with established criminal-law principles.
The proposed test for criminal liability under the new trespass rules, for instance, would cover anyone who “ought to have known” they were banned – lowering the bar from actual knowledge to mere negligence. That reverses centuries of doctrine requiring proof of intent or awareness.
Meanwhile, information-sharing between stores to enforce multi-site bans would likely trigger privacy issues. The Privacy Commissioner has already said the proposals lack safeguards and are not “necessary, proportionate, or justified”.
A complex problem, simplistic solutions
Retail crime is a genuine concern. Many shopkeepers face repeat thefts and aggressive offenders. But the solutions offered so far – deregulating theft while deputising citizens – risk creating more problems than they solve.
Extending arrest powers could provoke violence. Expanding trespass orders may punish the vulnerable. And “walls of shame” risk breaching privacy law and damaging reputations without due process.
A more constructive approach might focus on enforcement and deterrence rather than symbolic law-and-order posturing. Retailers want safety, not a return to frontier justice.
Perhaps, rather than weakening the law or pushing citizens into dangerous roles, the minister should concentrate on ensuring that existing laws are properly resourced and enforced – and that the principles of justice, privacy and proportionality are not lost in the scramble to look tough on shoplifting.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.
