New Zealand has substantially expanded the circumstances in which ordinary people can arrest and detain others.  The changes arrived through the Crimes Amendment Act 2026 and commenced in August. They were promoted principally as a response to retail crime, giving shopkeepers, staff and security personnel greater ability to intervene when offending occurs.

On paper, that might sound straightforward.  Someone steals something. Someone stops them. Police arrive.  Except the people expected to exercise these powers are now being given advice that sounds rather more like preparation for frontline policing than ordinary retail work.

On 24 September, the New Zealand Security Association launched new guidance and specialist training for security guards contemplating citizen’s arrests.  Among the measures being recommended are body cameras, stab-resistant vests, physical fitness and advanced training.

The Association is also stressing that arrest should be a last resort.  Retail NZ has backed that cautious approach, warning that citizen’s arrests can expose both the alleged offender and the person making the arrest to significant risk.  Police are saying much the same thing.  Their official guidance advises that, in most situations, the safest response is to keep people safe, observe the offending and call 111.

So we have arrived at a slightly peculiar position.  Parliament has deliberately expanded the circumstances in which ordinary people may arrest one another.  The organisations responsible for policing, security and retail safety are simultaneously telling people to be extremely careful about actually doing it.

Citizen’s Arrest Is Not Amateur Policing

The phrase “citizen’s arrest” can create the impression that ordinary people have temporarily acquired police powers.

They have not.  Police themselves specifically warn that the protections available to someone making a citizen’s arrest are not equivalent to constabulary powers.  Instead, the Crimes Act provides legal protections in particular circumstances where a person arrests or detains somebody without a warrant.

Those circumstances matter enormously.  Section 35 concerns a person found committing an offence against the Crimes Act.  Sections 36 to 38 deal with other situations, including offences believed to be occurring at night, offences already committed, and people escaping while being pursued.  The 2026 amendments widened these protections and altered the rules surrounding the use of force.  But there is an important distinction buried inside those provisions.

Police guidance explains that somebody acting under s 35 may, where the section applies, be “justified”.  Under the Crimes Act, justification means the person is not guilty of an offence and is not liable to civil proceedings for the justified conduct.  Other provisions provide a narrower protection from criminal responsibility, which does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of civil liability.  That is not the kind of distinction most people are likely to work through while somebody is sprinting towards the door of a supermarket.  Yet it may matter enormously afterwards.

Then There Is Force

An arrest is not merely somebody saying, “Stop, you’re under arrest.”  The problem begins when the other person says no.

If the person attempts to leave, an arrest may require physical detention.  That means touching somebody who does not want to be touched.  Holding them.  Blocking their movement.  Potentially restraining them.

And that immediately brings the law of assault, reasonable force and personal safety into play.  The Crimes Amendment Act amended s 39 of the Crimes Act, which deals with force used in carrying out an arrest.  Police guidance consequently warns people to avoid force wherever possible and to act reasonably and proportionately.  Use excessive force and the person making the arrest may themselves face criminal or civil proceedings.  The practical difficulty should be obvious.

“Reasonable force” is an elegant legal phrase.  It is less elegant when two frightened people are wrestling beside a supermarket checkout.  The question of what was reasonable may eventually be considered by Police, lawyers, insurers or a court, all of whom will have considerably more time to analyse the encounter than the people involved had while it was happening.

You Also Become Responsible For The Person You Arrest

There is another part of Police guidance that deserves considerably more attention.  If you detain somebody, you acquire responsibilities towards them.  Police advise anyone carrying out a citizen’s arrest to regularly check the detained person’s welfare.  That can include considering whether they require medical assistance or whether they are vulnerable because of age, disability, intoxication or some other condition.

Police specifically warn against kneeling or sitting on a detained person or placing pressure on their head or neck because of the risk of positional asphyxia.  Think about what that means in practice.  An ordinary retail employee might be expected to:

• identify an offence;

• identify the correct offender;

• understand whether the circumstances legally permit arrest;

• communicate that arrest;

• decide whether detention is necessary;

• judge what level of force is reasonable;

• manage the risk of weapons or violence;

• contact Police;

• follow Police instructions;

• monitor the detained person’s health;

• and avoid causing injury while preventing escape.

Police officers train for precisely this sort of situation.  The New Zealand Security Association is now creating advanced training specifically because even licensed security officers cannot simply be assumed to know how to do it safely.  The Association hopes to train around 50 guards by Christmas and between 200 and 250 during the following year. New Zealand has approximately 20,000 licensed security officers.  That ratio rather neatly illustrates the problem.

The Stab Vest Problem

There is something almost accidentally revealing about the recommendation that trained security guards wear stab-resistant vests.  It is not that protective equipment is excessive.  Quite the opposite.

If guards are going to physically intervene with people suspected of offending, protective equipment may be entirely sensible.

But once stab-resistant clothing has become part of the recommended preparation, it becomes difficult to maintain the fiction that this is simply a minor adjustment to ordinary retail practice.

The security industry says guards should be trained, competent and properly equipped before undertaking these arrests.  Its chief executive, Gary Morrison, has pointed to the possibility of knives, escalating aggression and members of the public misunderstanding what the law allows.  That advice is sensible.  It also exposes the uncomfortable policy question:  If a trained security professional may require advanced instruction, body-worn evidence gathering, physical preparation and stab-resistant armour before attempting an arrest, what exactly are we expecting from the 19-year-old working the checkout?

Employers Cannot Ignore Health And Safety

There is also another legal regime sitting quietly in the background.  Workplace health and safety law.  A retailer cannot simply look at expanded arrest powers and conclude that employees should now chase shoplifters.  An employer has obligations concerning workplace risks, systems of work, training and employee safety.

The fact that the Crimes Act may permit an arrest does not mean an employer can sensibly require an untrained worker to make one.  Indeed, the warnings now emerging from Police, Retail NZ and the security industry arguably make the risks increasingly difficult for employers to pretend they did not understand.  Any business considering a policy that encourages employees or contractors to physically detain suspected offenders should therefore be asking some fairly serious questions:

• Who is trained?

• Who is authorised?

• When should staff disengage?

• What happens if a weapon appears?

• What restraint techniques are permitted?

• What first-aid training exists?

• Who records the incident?

• What happens when the wrong person is detained?

• What happens when the person is injured?

And perhaps most importantly, are employees being placed in danger to protect merchandise?  Retail crime is real.  So are stab wounds.

The Wrong Person Problem

Every citizen’s-arrest discussion eventually reaches the same uncomfortable possibility.  What if you are wrong?  Security footage can be misunderstood.  Staff can confuse customers.  Witnesses make mistakes.  People put items in bags intending to pay for them.  Someone may resemble the person another employee saw offending moments earlier.

Once physical detention begins, the consequences of getting that identification wrong become significantly more serious.  Police explicitly tell people making citizen’s arrests to be sure they have the correct person and to have reasonable and probable grounds for believing the relevant offence has occurred.  Again, this sounds perfectly manageable when written as guidance.  Reality is messier.

A mistaken suspicion becomes a mistaken accusation.  A mistaken accusation becomes detention.  Detention becomes resistance.  Resistance becomes force.  And suddenly two people each believe the other is committing an offence.

One believes they are lawfully arresting a thief.  The other believes they are being unlawfully assaulted.  That is not a hypothetical legal curiosity.  That is precisely the kind of uncertainty rules governing arrest are designed to control.

Why Expand The Powers At All?

The Government’s rationale is straightforward.  Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the changes were intended to give retailers stronger tools against offending and to ensure people committing retail crime could be stopped, caught and deterred.  The Government has pointed to the substantial economic and personal costs of retail offending and abuse directed at shop workers and security staff.  Those concerns are legitimate policy considerations.

Retail workers should not simply be expected to tolerate theft, threats or violence as part of their employment.  But that does not answer the harder question.  Should the solution involve transferring more responsibility for physically confronting offenders from the state to shopkeepers, employees and private security personnel?

Because arrest is not merely another crime-prevention technique.  It is one person intentionally depriving another person of their liberty.  That is an extraordinary power.  The fact that the law permits it does not make exercising it simple.

A Power You Probably Should Not Need

There may well be circumstances where a citizen’s arrest prevents serious offending or protects somebody from harm.  There may also be circumstances where trained security staff can safely and lawfully detain an offender until Police arrive.  The legislation recognises those possibilities.  But the emerging guidance tells us something equally important.

Having a power and sensibly exercising that power are very different things.  Police say observation and calling 111 will usually be safer.  Retail NZ says the process is difficult and can easily go wrong.  The security industry says arrest should be a last resort and is developing specialist training for the guards expected to perform it.  It recommends protective equipment because an attempted arrest might end with somebody producing a knife.

None of that necessarily proves Parliament was wrong to expand the law.  It does, however, leave New Zealand with a strange arrangement.  We have broadened one of the most coercive powers an ordinary person can exercise over another.  Then, almost immediately, we started teaching people why they probably should not use it.

Sources

• New Zealand Police, Citizen’s Arrest, Retail Crime Prevention Hub.

• New Zealand Police, Retail Crime Prevention Hub.

• Crimes Amendment Act 2026.

• 1News, “Stab vests, body cams: Advice to security guards on citizen’s arrests”, 24 September 2026.

• New Zealand Government / Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, “Enhanced citizens’ arrest powers pass into law”, 6 August 2026.