ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar emailed PoO today to whoop about “today’s introduction of a new law expanding citizens’ arrest powers and introducing infringement fees for shoplifters…” It shows her party’s continued commitment to standing up for retailers, she said.
Click on to her link and you will find it’s not yet a new law. It’s a bill.
The Government’s Crimes Amendment Bill provides for criminals to face stronger penalties for attacking first responders, coward punches, human trafficking, and retail crime.
Infringement fees for people caught shoplifting will amount to instant punishment.
Parmar said a swift, certain penalty is the best deterrent.
“When would-be thieves know they can be stopped on the spot and penalised on the spot, the calculation changes. Shoplifting will no longer feel like a low-risk crime.”
The changes had resulted from, listening to the people on the frontline – dairy owners, bottle store operators, and retailers who deal with the consequences of lawlessness every day –Parmar said.
“I have even heard complaints of shoplifting from hospice shop workers.”
But shoplifting isn’t the only drain on retailers’ cash flows.
Stuff today reports the case of a woman who stole cash from the till of her Southland employer many times.
Aged in her mid-20s and employed by “a Southland organisation” at the time of the offending, the woman pleaded guilty to a charge of theft by a person in a special relationship.
The Stuff report says:
A police summary of facts said the woman’s duties at her workplace included processing cash transactions at the tills and cashing up the tills after each shift.
In 2024, her employer noticed inconsistencies in the banking related to the cash float account.
A financial report spanning one year showed a $23,627 loss from the cash float account, the summary said.
The organisation decided to investigate the cause of the losses by installing a CCTV camera in the office.
The footage showed the woman stealing cash from the till on six occasions over three consecutive days, totalling $360.
Hmm.
The information which followed this suggests the prosecution could make a case only for the theft of $360.
Her lawyer Jono Ross – seeking a discharge without conviction for his client – told the judge she had since paid the $360 reparation to her former employer, had undertaken voluntary community service, and had attended counselling sessions which she intended to continue.
And – guess what?
Judge Mark Williams discharged her without conviction and granted permanent name suppression when she appeared in the Invercargill District Court last week.
The judge said he had taken into account whether a conviction was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.
In her favour was her young age, the fact that she had “no previous convictions recorded” and was employed, had good references, had undertaken counselling to address the issues in her life, had done some voluntary work and had paid back the $360, the judge said.
The judge further noted she was a tertiary education student, and her lawyer had submitted she would be stepping into a career or other work and would be hampered by a conviction.
One more consideration:
The woman had been in a position of trust but the $360 sum was a “relatively small amount”.
But would the judge consider the shoplifting of goods worth $360 to be a “relatively small amount”?
The email from Parmjeet Parmar did not specify the magnitude of the penalties to be imposed on shoplifters.
But back in July, when Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced the new infringement regime alongside tougher penalties for theft, RNZ reported:
Shoplifters could be slapped with a ticket of up to $1000 on-the-spot under the government’s latest crime crackdown.
And:
Under the new scheme, those caught shoplifting lower-value goods could be stung up to $500. For goods worth more than that, the fee could climb as high as $1000.
The maximum punishment for theft would also be hiked to one year in prison for goods worth $2000 or less, or seven years for more serious cases.
As well, a new aggravating factor would be introduced for high-value theft carried out in an “offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly” manner.
The measures fall within the government’s wider overhaul of the Crimes Act, with legislation expected to be introduced to Parliament this year.
This fulfils a commitment in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement to ensure “real consequences for lower-level crimes such as shoplifting”.
Goldsmith said the police could be called to a store to issue a ticket immediately, or they could issue it several days later if a shoplifter was identified on CCTV footage.
In the case reported above, after the court hearing the woman’s employer said he was “pissed [off]” because he believed the offender had got off lightly.
He had reported the woman to authorities because he wanted her future employers to be aware of her history – “we didn’t want some other poor devil to get lined up by her next time around.”
Perhaps the lesson for shoplifters is to get a job in shops and tickle the peter, but be prepared to pay back any sum which the boss can prove was plundered.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Infringement fees for people caught shoplifting will amount to instant punishment.
Parmar said a swift, certain penalty is the best deterrent.
“When would-be thieves know they can be stopped on the spot and penalised on the spot, the calculation changes. Shoplifting will no longer feel like a low-risk crime.”
The changes had resulted from, listening to the people on the frontline – dairy owners, bottle store operators, and retailers who deal with the consequences of lawlessness every day –Parmar said.
“I have even heard complaints of shoplifting from hospice shop workers.”
But shoplifting isn’t the only drain on retailers’ cash flows.
Stuff today reports the case of a woman who stole cash from the till of her Southland employer many times.
Aged in her mid-20s and employed by “a Southland organisation” at the time of the offending, the woman pleaded guilty to a charge of theft by a person in a special relationship.
The Stuff report says:
A police summary of facts said the woman’s duties at her workplace included processing cash transactions at the tills and cashing up the tills after each shift.
In 2024, her employer noticed inconsistencies in the banking related to the cash float account.
A financial report spanning one year showed a $23,627 loss from the cash float account, the summary said.
The organisation decided to investigate the cause of the losses by installing a CCTV camera in the office.
The footage showed the woman stealing cash from the till on six occasions over three consecutive days, totalling $360.
Hmm.
The information which followed this suggests the prosecution could make a case only for the theft of $360.
Her lawyer Jono Ross – seeking a discharge without conviction for his client – told the judge she had since paid the $360 reparation to her former employer, had undertaken voluntary community service, and had attended counselling sessions which she intended to continue.
And – guess what?
Judge Mark Williams discharged her without conviction and granted permanent name suppression when she appeared in the Invercargill District Court last week.
The judge said he had taken into account whether a conviction was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.
In her favour was her young age, the fact that she had “no previous convictions recorded” and was employed, had good references, had undertaken counselling to address the issues in her life, had done some voluntary work and had paid back the $360, the judge said.
The judge further noted she was a tertiary education student, and her lawyer had submitted she would be stepping into a career or other work and would be hampered by a conviction.
One more consideration:
The woman had been in a position of trust but the $360 sum was a “relatively small amount”.
But would the judge consider the shoplifting of goods worth $360 to be a “relatively small amount”?
The email from Parmjeet Parmar did not specify the magnitude of the penalties to be imposed on shoplifters.
But back in July, when Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced the new infringement regime alongside tougher penalties for theft, RNZ reported:
Shoplifters could be slapped with a ticket of up to $1000 on-the-spot under the government’s latest crime crackdown.
And:
Under the new scheme, those caught shoplifting lower-value goods could be stung up to $500. For goods worth more than that, the fee could climb as high as $1000.
The maximum punishment for theft would also be hiked to one year in prison for goods worth $2000 or less, or seven years for more serious cases.
As well, a new aggravating factor would be introduced for high-value theft carried out in an “offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly” manner.
The measures fall within the government’s wider overhaul of the Crimes Act, with legislation expected to be introduced to Parliament this year.
This fulfils a commitment in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement to ensure “real consequences for lower-level crimes such as shoplifting”.
Goldsmith said the police could be called to a store to issue a ticket immediately, or they could issue it several days later if a shoplifter was identified on CCTV footage.
In the case reported above, after the court hearing the woman’s employer said he was “pissed [off]” because he believed the offender had got off lightly.
He had reported the woman to authorities because he wanted her future employers to be aware of her history – “we didn’t want some other poor devil to get lined up by her next time around.”
Perhaps the lesson for shoplifters is to get a job in shops and tickle the peter, but be prepared to pay back any sum which the boss can prove was plundered.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment