John MacDonald: Guilt until innocence proven would be a slippery slope

I’m no apologist for shoplifters. I think it is appalling that retail crime costs retailers $2.6 billion a year. And that more than half of them not only have to deal with shoplifters coming in and helping themselves to stuff, close to 60% of retailers also have to put up with threatening behaviour from these thugs.    

But I’m not sold on this plan by the Government to turn “innocent until proven guilty” on its head for people accused of shoplifting and, instead, assume they’re guilty from the start until they themselves can prove they’re innocent.  

I’m coming at it from two perspectives: the practicality of it, and the risk of it becoming a bit of a slippery slope.  

Yes, as Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith was saying on Newstalk ZB today, it would be similar to a speeding ticket, where you get the ticket and it’s on you to prove that you weren’t in the wrong.  

Except speeding tickets are issued by the police, and I don’t hear the Government saying that they’re going to have police writing out tickets for shoplifters. Already, if you go to Westfield Mall and get a parking ticket, you can get out of that because they don’t have authority to issue them. The same thing will happen with shoplifters.  

The other reason I don’t like this idea is that I see it as a slippery slope. If we start saying shoplifters are guilty until they can prove that they’re innocent, then what or who next?  

If it’s okay to tell someone accused of shoplifting that they’re guilty until they can prove otherwise —instead of forcing those making the accusations to prove their guilt— then why not do it with other crimes?  

When it comes to the law and the justice system, whether we like it or not, everyone needs to be treated equally.  

Whether we like it or not, that includes people allegedly involved in criminal activity. Which is why I think it would be wrong to start telling people accused of shoplifting that, unless or until they can prove their innocence, they’re guilty.  

I’m no shoplifting sympathiser, but this mucking around with one of the basic foundations of the justice system is the wrong approach.  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from news Talk Zby.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Make something clear right from the start, crystal clear, right
from the start, just so you don't get the wrong
end of the stick. I am no sympathizer or apologist
for shoplifters. All right, I'm no sympathizer and I'm no apologist.
I think it is absolutely appalling that retail crime costs

(00:35):
retailers two point six billion dollars a year, that around
three quarters of retailers have to deal with shoplifting, and
that more than half of them not only have to
deal with shoplifters coming in and helping themselves to stuff,
more than half of them, close to sixty percent of
retailers also have to put up with threatening behavior from

(00:55):
these thugs. So I've got zero time for shoplifters, zero
time for shoplifting. But I've got no time either for
this planned by the government to turn the innocent until
proven guilty thing on its head for people accused of
shoplifting and instead assume that they are guilty from the
start until they themselves can prove that they're innocent. Got

(01:18):
no time for that, and I'm coming at it from
two perspectives, the practicality of it also the risk of
it becoming a bit of a slippery slope. But first,
here's how the Justice Minister, Paul Goldsmith explained the new
approach to dealing with shoplifters when he spoke to Mike
earlier this morning.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
It's more akin to a traffic offense. 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 find to come up with a quick
and swift way to deal with shoplifting other than the alternative,

(02:01):
which is to go through the whole court process.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
Now, some people are worried that this approach will contravene
the Bill of Right, but the Justice Minister doesn't seem
too concerned about that.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
We don't sort of just ignore the Bill of Rights.
We'll design it in a way. We'll set out to
design it in a way that works effectively within the
Bill of Rights. And just as the speeding a fine
fine does as well. That's the basic sort of process.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
I mean.

Speaker 3 (02:25):
We've got to remember we've got a real issue of
retail crime big increasing, 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 so that there is a real consequence for that
level of shop list.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
All right, So yeah, let's get it clear. I agree
with everyone who says shoplifting is out of control. I
agree with that. But this approach the government wants to
take won't work. This is the practicality side of it
that I mentioned before. I mean, yes, as the Minister
was saying there, it would be similar to a speeding ticket,
where get the ticket and it's on you to prove
that you weren't in the wrong. Except here's the fly

(03:07):
on the ointment for the government. Speeding tickets are issued
by the police. And I don't hear the government saying
that they're going to have police riding out tickets for
shoplifters and your certainmarkets and your pharmacies and your dairies.
I mean already, if you go to Westfield More and
get a parking ticket, for example, you can get out
of that because they don't have authority to issue them.
Same thing's going to happen with the shoplifters. What's more,

(03:30):
the kind of muppets who think they don't have to
pay for stuff in shops and think they can help themselves.
They're the same muppets who don't bother paying off fines
and who don't give a damn about fines and don't
give a damn about consequences, So this will have no
impact on those people. The other reason I don't like
this idea is that I see it as a slippery slope,

(03:51):
which is where the concerns about it contravening the Bill
of Rights comes into it. Because if we start saying
shoplifters are guilty until they can prove that they're innocent,
then what next? Where do we go next with it?
And it's okay to tell someone accused of shoplifting that
they're guilty until they can prove otherwise, instead of forcing
those making the accusations to prove their guilt, then why

(04:13):
do to deal with other crimes as well? Eh? You know,
when it comes to the law and justice system, whether
we like it or not, everybody needs to be treated equally,
whether we like it or not. That includes people involved
in criminal activity. That includes shoplifters, retail criminals. Call them
what you want, which is why I think I think
it would be so wrong to start telling people accused

(04:35):
of shoplifting that unless or until they can prove their innocence.
Until that happens, you're guilty. As I say, I'm no
shoplifting sympathizer, but this mucking around with one of the
basic foundations of the justice system is wrong in my book.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.