There are two camps when it comes to the Government’s proposal to loosen citizen’s arrest laws.
The measure is being pitched as a remedy for retail crime, by allowing workers and the public to detain suspected thieves with "reasonable force".
However, concerns have been raised about the risks involved and what constitutes “reasonable force”.
Otago University Law Professor Andrew Geddis believes the proposal is risky, telling Kerre Woodham it seems like an extreme expansion of the power for one particular problem.
He says it also runs the risk of someone carrying out a citizen’s arrest only for the police to be unable to attend to it, potentially creating a false promise for retailers.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks,
he'd be.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
As we've been discussing the government's introducing legislation loosening general
public arrest ruals, including permitting citizens arrests at any time
of the day, in response to retail crime. The Police Association,
among others, is hesitant about the changes. Legal academic Andrew
Gettis also thinks it's risky and has written about the
Wise and the spinoff. Today, University of Otago law professor
(00:35):
Andrew Gettis joins us, Now, very very good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah, Morony Caarry.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
For those who don't subscribe to the spinoff, and they
should because it's very good reading. Can you tell us
why you think this is a bad idea?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Sure, So, the government is responding to what it's heard
of as concerns from retailers who say that they don't
have enough power to respond when people are engaged in
lifting basically, and so what the government is proposing is
(01:10):
to expand the defense it's available that allows people to
carry out citizens arrests, to use reasonable force to detain
someone and hold them, to cover all crimes at crimes.
So if you see anyone committing an offense under the
Crimes Act, and you then take action to grab them
(01:32):
and hold them and keep them in place until the
police can come, you will have a defense. You can't
be charged with what otherwise would be an assault or
even kidnapping. You know, if I grab you on the
street and hold you and don't let you go, that's
a defense. But the citizens' arrest powers would provide a
defense to that offense, so you couldn't be prosecuted for it.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Right on a case by case basis surely.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Well. The blanket provision that the government seems to be
bringing in is no, if you see someone commission an offense,
and it's not quite clear whether that will include a
reasonable belief, as if you just reasonably believe someone that's
committing in the defense, you can then take this action,
and if you do it and use reasonable force whatever
(02:20):
that means, you will not be able to be then
prosecuted for having done so. The concerns about it are, well,
there's various ones. First of all, it seems like an
extreme expansion of the citizens arrest power for one particular problem.
So it's not just retail crime that will be covered here.
It's all potential crimes. The second problem is it really
(02:42):
does then set up, you know, the risk of quite
antagonistic will interactions. So if you actually try to carry
out the citizens arrest and whose forced to hold someone
in place and that person resists, well you're going to
then have citizen on citizen violence, which is a problem.
The third thing is you know, you it says you're
(03:03):
allowed to use reasonable force, but you know what is
reasonable force? In the stand up that Minister Goldsmith had,
he was asked and he said, oh, you're be able
to hold someone, but you won't be able to put
them on a headlock. Well, I think a lot of
people will say, well, if I'm arresting someone, surely I
can put them in a headlock. And citizens just aren't
trained to do this sort of thing in the same
(03:25):
way as police and so on are, So it's putting
that sort of risk. And then the other issue is
what exactly is going to happen once the arrest has happened,
because the provision the proposal is that you then have
to get in touch with the police and do what
the police tell you. Yeah, and there's every risk I
could see if someone carrying out a sister's arrest. You know,
(03:46):
someone is stealing chocolate bars from my shop, I've got
them here, and the police will say, yeah, well, we're
so busy, that's such a low level crime. We just
can't get to you, and we're not going to let
you hold them for you know, three four hours till
we can get to you. They just have to let
them go. So there is I think a potential risk
that this sort of sets up as like a false
promise that, you know, retailers, you will be empowered, only
(04:10):
to then have the police say, yeah, well we can't
actually take any action over this, so you just have
to let them go.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
That would You can understand where the frustration from the
public and the shopkeepers is coming from.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Though.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I mean, it's not like the government invented this minister
and advisory group. This is a ground up desire for
justice to be done. It is not just and right
that I am compromising and making choices about my shopping
when I go to the supermarket only to have some
someone walk past me with a grocery you know, with
(04:47):
a trolley full of groceries into the boot of the
car and off they go and nothing happens.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Yep, So to take that example, there already is in
our law a power to use reasonable force to take
property off someone if they've taken it off you. So
there was if you see someone stealing your stuff, you
already have a power and more to go and take
it back off them. What you don't necessarily have the
(05:14):
power to do is arrest them and hold them until
the police come. And that's the extra expansion that's being
talked about here. It's basically empowering I guess the individual
citizen to take the place of the police in carrying
out arrests because there aren't enough police out there doing
(05:34):
that job.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, they say that they haven't got the man power
and the woman power. So what do we do well.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
The obvious, well, the answer would seem to be get
more police, and of course that's what the government promised.
There's a sneaking suspicion and they don't really want to
be super cynical, but sneaking suspicion. This is almost to
cover up the fact that the government is finding so
hard to meet its targets and police.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Oh, Nicole McKee was talking it up just the other day,
she said it. They are absolutely confident that they will
meet the targets given the numbers that are going through
the police college.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Yeah, okay, well let's just see. Okay, we'll wait and
hold on that. But then the second thing is, even
if this is a response, you still have to ask,
you know, what are the costs potential costs of this response.
You know, it's like, you know, here's a problem.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
What is the cost of retail crime?
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Oh? Sure, you know the cost of retail crime may
be high. But the empowering people to act as an
essence the police to be able to grab people and
hold them, to take that sort of potentially very dangerous action,
both for the person taking the action and the people
(06:52):
they're grabbing. Also, what's the cost of people getting this wrong?
Like what if the shop owner sees someone, thinks, ah,
I think they're stealing stuff, grabs them, holds them, and
it turns out the person hasn't done anything wrong. What
responses there then? So that these are all the fishoks
and what superficially seems to be a really good idea.
You know, if people are stealing stuff, we should just
(07:14):
let the shop owners grab them and hold them. Okay,
but what are the fish shocks? What are the potential consequences.
What are the possible costs.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
I totally get that, and that is your job to
look at that. But when you look at the numbers
of store owners who have been killed, assaulted, had their
livelihoods destroyed, when you look at the extra cost it
puts on laurabiding consumers, when you look at the fact
that young people might become criminal if they're in a
(07:44):
court and brought before a court because they think it's
easy because everybody does it, because nobody gets caught, and
they end up being the one who does get caught
and all of a sudden they've got a criminal record.
What is the cost of not doing it?
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Yeah? So, I mean just thinking that through. If our
concern is shopowners been assaulted and killed and harmed, telling
shop owners, hey, you can grab offenders and hold them
doesn't really seem to match up. If you're empowering shopowners
take even more action, et cetera, et cetera, they're actually
(08:17):
just escalating the potential violence stakes in these sort of situations.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
They might think it's better to die on your feet
than live on your knees. Well, okay, you know, I mean,
you know they're getting killed there, you know, they're getting
assaulted anyway, you might as well give it a college
try and prevent them from from sailing out. I mean,
I would hate that. I would hate that. You know,
that's not what we want to see, But neither do
I want to see the status quo. They can't go
(08:44):
on like this.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Well, I mean, just to know, as I've already said,
there already is a power and law for shop owners
to try to take their stuff back. What we're talking
about is turning shopowners basically into an arm of the
police to be able to arrest and hold people in
the hope that when the police get there, a police
(09:06):
are going to be able to do something about it.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
And that the courts will do something about it. Because
you know, as I said earlier, you know, if you've
got somebody who commits verticular homicide basically and gets a
year home detention, what are you going to get? What's
if that's the basis, then what do you get for
two hundred dollars worth of groceries that you've nicked?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yeah, well exactly, And that's why I do suspect what's
going to happen with this. There is a lot of
the time shop owners are going to grab someone, call
the police say hey, I've got someone who's stolen tw
hundred dollars with the groceries, and the police response will
be well, that's job number twenty. We won't get to
you for another four hours. We can't authorize you to
(09:44):
hold that person. And remember when we say hold that
person includes being able to tie them up for four
hours until we get to you. You're just going to
have to let them go. And so, you know, the
even if it sounds like a nice idea, I do
think the practicality and how will actually work out in
practice won't work out quite as we might expect in
(10:07):
a perfect, perfect situation.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I thank you very very much for your time. Andrew Gettis, Professor,
Andrew gettus University of Otago Law Professor.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news Talks at b from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks,
he'd be.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
As we've been discussing the government's introducing legislation loosening general
public arrest ruals, including permitting citizens arrests at any time
of the day, in response to retail crime. The Police Association,
among others, is hesitant about the changes. Legal academic Andrew
Gettis also thinks it's risky and has written about the
Wise and the spinoff. Today, University of Otago law professor
(00:35):
Andrew Gettis joins us, Now, very very good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah, Morony Caarry.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
For those who don't subscribe to the spinoff, and they
should because it's very good reading. Can you tell us
why you think this is a bad idea?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Sure, So, the government is responding to what it's heard
of as concerns from retailers who say that they don't
have enough power to respond when people are engaged in
lifting basically, and so what the government is proposing is
(01:10):
to expand the defense it's available that allows people to
carry out citizens arrests, to use reasonable force to detain
someone and hold them, to cover all crimes at crimes.
So if you see anyone committing an offense under the
Crimes Act, and you then take action to grab them
(01:32):
and hold them and keep them in place until the
police can come, you will have a defense. You can't
be charged with what otherwise would be an assault or
even kidnapping. You know, if I grab you on the
street and hold you and don't let you go, that's
a defense. But the citizens' arrest powers would provide a
defense to that offense, so you couldn't be prosecuted for it.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Right on a case by case basis surely.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Well. The blanket provision that the government seems to be
bringing in is no, if you see someone commission an offense,
and it's not quite clear whether that will include a
reasonable belief, as if you just reasonably believe someone that's
committing in the defense, you can then take this action,
and if you do it and use reasonable force whatever
(02:20):
that means, you will not be able to be then
prosecuted for having done so. The concerns about it are, well,
there's various ones. First of all, it seems like an
extreme expansion of the citizens arrest power for one particular problem.
So it's not just retail crime that will be covered here.
It's all potential crimes. The second problem is it really
(02:42):
does then set up, you know, the risk of quite
antagonistic will interactions. So if you actually try to carry
out the citizens arrest and whose forced to hold someone
in place and that person resists, well you're going to
then have citizen on citizen violence, which is a problem.
The third thing is you know, you it says you're
(03:03):
allowed to use reasonable force, but you know what is
reasonable force? In the stand up that Minister Goldsmith had,
he was asked and he said, oh, you're be able
to hold someone, but you won't be able to put
them on a headlock. Well, I think a lot of
people will say, well, if I'm arresting someone, surely I
can put them in a headlock. And citizens just aren't
trained to do this sort of thing in the same
(03:25):
way as police and so on are, So it's putting
that sort of risk. And then the other issue is
what exactly is going to happen once the arrest has happened,
because the provision the proposal is that you then have
to get in touch with the police and do what
the police tell you. Yeah, and there's every risk I
could see if someone carrying out a sister's arrest. You know,
(03:46):
someone is stealing chocolate bars from my shop, I've got
them here, and the police will say, yeah, well, we're
so busy, that's such a low level crime. We just
can't get to you, and we're not going to let
you hold them for you know, three four hours till
we can get to you. They just have to let
them go. So there is I think a potential risk
that this sort of sets up as like a false
promise that, you know, retailers, you will be empowered, only
(04:10):
to then have the police say, yeah, well we can't
actually take any action over this, so you just have
to let them go.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
That would You can understand where the frustration from the
public and the shopkeepers is coming from.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Though.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I mean, it's not like the government invented this minister
and advisory group. This is a ground up desire for
justice to be done. It is not just and right
that I am compromising and making choices about my shopping
when I go to the supermarket only to have some
someone walk past me with a grocery you know, with
(04:47):
a trolley full of groceries into the boot of the
car and off they go and nothing happens.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Yep, So to take that example, there already is in
our law a power to use reasonable force to take
property off someone if they've taken it off you. So
there was if you see someone stealing your stuff, you
already have a power and more to go and take
it back off them. What you don't necessarily have the
(05:14):
power to do is arrest them and hold them until
the police come. And that's the extra expansion that's being
talked about here. It's basically empowering I guess the individual
citizen to take the place of the police in carrying
out arrests because there aren't enough police out there doing
(05:34):
that job.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, they say that they haven't got the man power
and the woman power. So what do we do well.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
The obvious, well, the answer would seem to be get
more police, and of course that's what the government promised.
There's a sneaking suspicion and they don't really want to
be super cynical, but sneaking suspicion. This is almost to
cover up the fact that the government is finding so
hard to meet its targets and police.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Oh, Nicole McKee was talking it up just the other day,
she said it. They are absolutely confident that they will
meet the targets given the numbers that are going through
the police college.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Yeah, okay, well let's just see. Okay, we'll wait and
hold on that. But then the second thing is, even
if this is a response, you still have to ask,
you know, what are the costs potential costs of this response.
You know, it's like, you know, here's a problem.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
What is the cost of retail crime?
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Oh? Sure, you know the cost of retail crime may
be high. But the empowering people to act as an
essence the police to be able to grab people and
hold them, to take that sort of potentially very dangerous action,
both for the person taking the action and the people
(06:52):
they're grabbing. Also, what's the cost of people getting this wrong?
Like what if the shop owner sees someone, thinks, ah,
I think they're stealing stuff, grabs them, holds them, and
it turns out the person hasn't done anything wrong. What
responses there then? So that these are all the fishoks
and what superficially seems to be a really good idea.
You know, if people are stealing stuff, we should just
(07:14):
let the shop owners grab them and hold them. Okay,
but what are the fish shocks? What are the potential consequences.
What are the possible costs.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
I totally get that, and that is your job to
look at that. But when you look at the numbers
of store owners who have been killed, assaulted, had their
livelihoods destroyed, when you look at the extra cost it
puts on laurabiding consumers, when you look at the fact
that young people might become criminal if they're in a
(07:44):
court and brought before a court because they think it's
easy because everybody does it, because nobody gets caught, and
they end up being the one who does get caught
and all of a sudden they've got a criminal record.
What is the cost of not doing it?
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Yeah? So, I mean just thinking that through. If our
concern is shopowners been assaulted and killed and harmed, telling
shop owners, hey, you can grab offenders and hold them
doesn't really seem to match up. If you're empowering shopowners
take even more action, et cetera, et cetera, they're actually
(08:17):
just escalating the potential violence stakes in these sort of situations.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
They might think it's better to die on your feet
than live on your knees. Well, okay, you know, I mean,
you know they're getting killed there, you know, they're getting
assaulted anyway, you might as well give it a college
try and prevent them from from sailing out. I mean,
I would hate that. I would hate that. You know,
that's not what we want to see, But neither do
I want to see the status quo. They can't go
(08:44):
on like this.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Well, I mean, just to know, as I've already said,
there already is a power and law for shop owners
to try to take their stuff back. What we're talking
about is turning shopowners basically into an arm of the
police to be able to arrest and hold people in
the hope that when the police get there, a police
(09:06):
are going to be able to do something about it.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
And that the courts will do something about it. Because
you know, as I said earlier, you know, if you've
got somebody who commits verticular homicide basically and gets a
year home detention, what are you going to get? What's
if that's the basis, then what do you get for
two hundred dollars worth of groceries that you've nicked?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yeah, well exactly, And that's why I do suspect what's
going to happen with this. There is a lot of
the time shop owners are going to grab someone, call
the police say hey, I've got someone who's stolen tw
hundred dollars with the groceries, and the police response will
be well, that's job number twenty. We won't get to
you for another four hours. We can't authorize you to
(09:44):
hold that person. And remember when we say hold that
person includes being able to tie them up for four
hours until we get to you. You're just going to
have to let them go. And so, you know, the
even if it sounds like a nice idea, I do
think the practicality and how will actually work out in
practice won't work out quite as we might expect in
(10:07):
a perfect, perfect situation.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I thank you very very much for your time. Andrew Gettis, Professor,
Andrew gettus University of Otago Law Professor.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news Talks at b from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.