Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has released a cabinet paper proposing a raft of changes to the Crimes Act. This is part of the coalition agreement with NZ First. It introduces new offences and strengthens existing ones. The proposals include a new strict liability offence for shoplifting, with a $500 infringement fee, doubling to $1,000 if the value of the stolen goods is more than $500.  

It would be proven simply by evidence that people, or the person, left the store with the goods, so CCTV footage, but with a reasonable excuse defence to mitigate against catching people who genuinely make a mistake, according to Goldsmith's paper. A strict liability offence means there's no requirement to prove a guilty mind. So, the offence removes the requirement to prove intent and introduces reverse onus. The burden of proof is shifted to the defendant for the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence.  

Paul Goldsmith explained how he thought the new law would work on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning.  

“It's more akin to a traffic offence. So you know, you're speeding, you get a ticket. There's no sort of debate about it really, unless you've got a reasonable excuse, and you pay the fine. And the whole purpose of it is to come up with a quick and swift way to deal with shoplifting, other than the alternative, which is to go through the whole court process.  

“I mean, we've got to remember we've got a real issue with retail crime with this big increase in people going around stealing stuff. We've got to do something different. Currently, you've got to go off to court, that's a very high threshold and doesn't happen enough. And so what we're introducing is a swift and effective fine as an intermediate step to deal with things and so that there is a real consequence for that level of shoplifting.” 

Swift and effective fine? Who the hell is going to pay it?  

There are concerns the new shoplifting law would come up against the Bill of Rights, which says we have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Also, within the New Zealand Herald story on this that's online, there's a whole subheading saying, what it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse. Paul Goldsmith says in his paper, a strict liability offence increases the risk that misinterpreting the behaviour of deaf people, or people with an intellectual or neurodisability, could result in disproportionate impacts on this group.  

I get if you have an intellectual disability, you might not know it's wrong. Since when were deaf people shoplifters just because they were deaf? Since when were Māori shoplifters just because they were Māori? Sure, if you have an intellectual disability, absolutely. What it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse... the disabled and Māori and the neurodiverse aren't typically criminal? Honestly, how is how is being deaf going to make you a shoplifter? That it's going to increase the chances of you being pinged?   

My concerns are far more pragmatic. Whatever your reason for stealing stuff, whether you're a kid on a dare, you're desperate and starving, you're a low-life lazy thief – who's going to pay the fine? Maybe if you're a shoplifting former Green MP with PTSD and a fine taste in clothing, you'll pay the fine. But those sorts of people are still in the minority at the moment.  

I know they're trying to stop the courts getting cluttered up with shoplifters and that some shoplifters are getting away scot-free because the amount they stole doesn't meet the threshold for going to court. How many shoplifters, can you imagine, are going to sit down, oh, goodness me, I've got to pay that fine before I incur any extra costs. Must sit down and process the payment. There we go, job done. Or wander down to their nearest post shop with their $500 infringement fee clutched in their hot little hand and stand in the queue and go to the counter and say, sorry, I've got to pay my fine for shoplifting.  

I cannot see it. How many people shoplift accidentally? That's what I would like to know. There are also ways to mitigate that. I went to the supermarket with the grandchildren yesterday, chased down a poor security officer who was minding his own business and looking for trolleys of groceries going out the door of the New World. I said, look, I'm so sorry, excuse me, so sorry. Look, my granddaughter's just got some yoghurt that she didn't eat from her school lunch and she's going to eat that while we walk around and I'm very sorry, but we didn't. Yeah, okay, lady. Please get out of my grills, is what he seemed to be saying.  

There are ways and ways. What, you're going to say, I'm so sorry, I forgot I put this pack of sausages down the front of my trousers? I mean, what? How do you shoplift accidentally? How do you shoplift clothing accidentally? I'd really love to know. Perhaps you do. And equating it to speeding is just silly. Most of the time when people are speeding, nobody is impacted. I accept that when things go wrong, horrific. But most of the time if people are going 5 or 10 kph over the limit on an open road with nobody around, nobody's harmed. And if you do get pinged by a speed camera, you pay, because for the most part, just about everybody, I think, has gone over the limit. I mean, I'm making a huge general assumption here and put me right if I'm wrong. Most people have gone over the limit once or twice. If you're pinged, you pay your fine and that's that.  

Shoplifting's a whole other thing. Every time you slide a bottle of nail polish into your pocket or walk out with a trolley full of goods, we all get impacted. Retailers, insurers, shoppers, cops, the lot. What on earth is the point of introducing a law that the lawbreakers will simply ignore? Love to hear from you on this. Have you ever accidentally put something in your bag? A $500 sweater that you, oh, forgot to pay for? Or I know, you put something in your pocket, and you forget to pay for it?  

I just don't see how you can do it accidentally. And when you are stealing, quite often it's an act of intent. Speeding, it's sometimes your concentration lapses. And people generally pay their speeding fines. I paid one yesterday. You pay $30 for being pinged by a speed camera. And that's okay. Got it paid before the due date. How many shoplifters are going to be doing that? 

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has released a cabinet paper proposing a raft of changes to the Crimes Act. This is part of the coalition agreement with NZ First. It introduces new offences and strengthens existing ones. The proposals include a new strict liability offence for shoplifting, with a $500 infringement fee, doubling to $1,000 if the value of the stolen goods is more than $500. &nbsp;
It would be proven simply by evidence that people, or the person, left the store with the goods, so CCTV footage, but with a reasonable excuse defence to mitigate against catching people who genuinely make a mistake, according to Goldsmith's paper. A strict liability offence means there's no requirement to prove a guilty mind. So, the offence removes the requirement to prove intent and introduces reverse onus. The burden of proof is shifted to the defendant for the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence. &nbsp;
Paul Goldsmith explained how he thought the new law would work on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning. &nbsp;
“It's more akin to a traffic offence. So you know, you're speeding, you get a ticket. There's no sort of debate about it really, unless you've got a reasonable excuse, and you pay the fine. And the whole purpose of it is to come up with a quick and swift way to deal with shoplifting, other than the alternative, which is to go through the whole court process. &nbsp;
“I mean, we've got to remember we've got a real issue with retail crime with this big increase in people going around stealing stuff. We've got to do something different. Currently, you've got to go off to court, that's a very high threshold and doesn't happen enough. And so what we're introducing is a swift and effective fine as an intermediate step to deal with things and so that there is a real consequence for that level of shoplifting.”&nbsp;
Swift and effective fine? Who the hell is going to pay it? &nbsp;
There are concerns the new shoplifting law would come up against the Bill of Rights, which says we have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Also, within the New Zealand Herald story on this that's online, there's a whole subheading saying, what it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse. Paul Goldsmith says in his paper, a strict liability offence increases the risk that misinterpreting the behaviour of deaf people, or people with an intellectual or neurodisability, could result in disproportionate impacts on this group. &nbsp;
I get if you have an intellectual disability, you might not know it's wrong. Since when were deaf people shoplifters just because they were deaf? Since when were Māori shoplifters just because they were Māori? Sure, if you have an intellectual disability, absolutely. What it could mean for Māori, the disabled, the neurodiverse... the disabled and Māori and the neurodiverse aren't typically criminal? Honestly, how is how is being deaf going to make you a shoplifter? That it's going to increase the chances of you being pinged? &nbsp;&nbsp;
My concerns are far more pragmatic. Whatever your reason for stealing stuff, whether you're a kid on a dare, you're desperate and starving, you're a low-life lazy thief – who's going to pay the fine? Maybe if you're a shoplifting former Green MP with PTSD and a fine taste in clothing, you'll pay the fine. But those sorts of people are still in the minority at the moment. &nbsp;
I know they're trying to stop the courts getting cluttered up with shoplifters and that some shoplifters are getting away scot-free because the amount they stole doesn't meet the threshold for going to court. How many shoplifters, can you imagine, are going to sit down, oh, goodness me, I've got to pay that fine before I incur any extra costs. Must sit down and process the payment. There we go, job done. Or wander down to their nearest post shop with their $500 infringement fee clutched in their hot little hand and stand in the queue and go to the counter and say, sorry, I've got to pay my fine for shoplifting. &nbsp;
I cannot see it. How many people shoplift accidentally? That's what I would like to know. There are also ways to mitigate that. I went to the supermarket with the grandchildren yesterday, chased down a poor security officer who was minding his own business and looking for trolleys of groceries going out the door of the New World. I said, look, I'm so sorry, excuse me, so sorry. Look, my granddaughter's just got some yoghurt that she didn't eat from her school lunch and she's going to eat that while we walk around and I'm very sorry, but we didn't. Yeah, okay, lady. Please get out of my grills, is what he seemed to be saying. &nbsp;
There are ways and ways. What, you're going to say, I'm so sorry, I forgot I put this pack of sausages down the front of my trousers? I mean, what? How do you shoplift accidentally? How do you shoplift clothing accidentally? I'd really love to know. Perhaps you do. And equating it to speeding is just silly. Most of the time when people are speeding, nobody is impacted. I accept that when things go wrong, horrific. But most of the time if people are going 5 or 10 kph over the limit on an open road with nobody around, nobody's harmed. And if you do get pinged by a speed camera, you pay, because for the most part, just about everybody, I think, has gone over the limit. I mean, I'm making a huge general assumption here and put me right if I'm wrong. Most people have gone over the limit once or twice. If you're pinged, you pay your fine and that's that. &nbsp;
Shoplifting's a whole other thing. Every time you slide a bottle of nail polish into your pocket or walk out with a trolley full of goods, we all get impacted. Retailers, insurers, shoppers, cops, the lot. What on earth is the point of introducing a law that the lawbreakers will simply ignore? Love to hear from you on this. Have you ever accidentally put something in your bag? A $500 sweater that you, oh, forgot to pay for? Or I know, you put something in your pocket, and you forget to pay for it? &nbsp;
I just don't see how you can do it accidentally. And when you are stealing, quite often it's an act of intent. Speeding, it's sometimes your concentration lapses. And people generally pay their speeding fines. I paid one yesterday. You pay $30 for being pinged by a speed camera. And that's okay. Got it paid before the due date. How many shoplifters are going to be doing that?&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Kerre Woodham: Who's going to pay a fine for shoplifting?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/d18f37b4-5f1c-4af9-9b0c-b355000cd24b/transcript

Advertisement