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

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

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be 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 New Zealand. First,
it introduces new offenses and strengthens existing ones. The proposals
include a new strict liability offense for shoplifting, with a

(00:33):
five hundred dollars infringement fee doubling to one thousand dollars
if the value of the stolen goods as more than
five hundred. It would be proven simply by evidence that
people or at the person left the store with the
goods so CCTV footage, but with a reasonable excuse defense

(00:53):
to mitigate against catching people who genuinely make a mistake.
According to Goldsmith's paper, I don't know how you'd genuinely
make a mistake of stealing more than five one hundred
dollars worth of goods, but I'd be interested to here
perhaps perhaps you have some thoughts. A strict liability offense

(01:14):
means there's no requirement to prove a guilty mind. So
the offense removes the requirement to prove intent and introduces
reverse onus. The burden of proof has shifted to the
defendant for the reasonable excuse defense. Paul Goldsmith explained how
he thought the new law would work on the mic
costing breakfast this morning.

Speaker 3 (01:34):
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 play 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,

(01:55):
which is to go through the whole court process. I mean,
we've got to remember we've got a real issue of
retail crime with a 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 thresh 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.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
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,

(02:37):
there's a whole subheading saying what it could mean for
Mary that disabled the neurodiverse. Paul Goldsmith says in his paper,
a strict liability offense increases the risk that misinterpreting the
behavior of deaf people or people with an intellectual and
neurodisability could result in disproportionate impacts on this group. I mean,

(03:01):
I get if you have an intellectual disability, you might
not know its wrong. Since when we're deaf people shoplifters
just because they were deaf? Since when were Mary shoplifters
just because they were Mary? Sure, if you have an
intellectual disability, absolutely what it could mean for Mariy that disabled?

(03:23):
Then you the disabled and Mariy and the neurodiverse aren't
typically criminal. Honestly, how is being deaf going to make
you a shoplifter? That it's going to increase the chances
of you being pinged? Honestly? Anyway, my concerns are far

(03:44):
more pragmatic. Whatever your reason for stealing stuff, whether you're
a kid on a deer, 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.

(04:06):
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 awayte got free because the amount they stole
doesn't meet the threshold for going to work. How many
shoplifters can you imagine are going to sit down, Oh goodness,
may I've got to pay that fine before I incur

(04:28):
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 five hundred dollars 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.

(04:52):
How many people shoplift accidentally, That's what I would like
to know. I mean, there are also ways to mitigate that.
I I went to the supermarket with the grandchildren yesterday
chase down a poor security officer who was minding his
own business and looking for trolleys of groceries going out
the door.

Speaker 3 (05:11):
Of the New World.

Speaker 2 (05:12):
I said, look, I'm so sorry, excuse me, so sorry. Look,
my granddaughter's just got some yogurt 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. That's what it seemed
to be. Sack. But so, I mean, there are ways

(05:33):
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. PEPs you do? And equating it to
speeding is just silly. Most of the time, when people

(05:54):
are speeding, nobody is impacted. I accept that when things
go wrong, horrific, But most of the time, if people
are going five ten k's over the limit on an
open road with nobody around, nobody's armed, you know, and
if you do get pinged by a spead camera, you pay.
Because for the most part, just about everybody I think

(06:17):
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 pinged, you pay your fine. And that's that.
Shoplifting is 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, shopers, cops,

(06:39):
the lot. What on earth is the point of introducing
a law that the law breakers will simply ignore? Love
to hear from you on this. Have you ever accidentally
put something in your bag a five hundred dollars sweater

(07:01):
that you forgot to pay for? Or I 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 active intent. Speeding,

(07:21):
it's sometimes your concentration. Concentration lapses and people generally pay
their speeding funds. I paid one yesterday. Pay thirty dollars
for being pinged by a speed camera and that's okay,
got it paid before the due date. How many shoplift
is going to be doing that?

Speaker 1 (07:38):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.