Retail NZ is seeking an "urgent meeting" with the Police Minister after RNZ revealed a police directive to staff said they would no longer be investigating allegations of shoplifting below $500 regardless of lines of inquiry as part of a new nationwide directive.
The directive, sent to staff in March, has sparked confusion about the reality of the situation, with police conceding on Friday that while the wording of the directive "could have been clearer" police would continue to investigate reports if there are avenues of inquiry to explore.
RNZ has seen a directive that was recently sent to staff relating to police's File Management Centre (FMC) titled 'Assignment Changes - Theft and Fraud'.
The directive said that from 26 March the FMC was applying "nationally standardised value thresholds" when assessing theft and fraud files.
The value thresholds are - general theft $200, petrol drive off $150, shoplifting $500, fraud (paywave, online, scam etc) $1000, and all other fraud $500.
"When assessing files with these offences, you will apply the relevant value threshold and file any file under that threshold regardless of any lines of enquiry or IFA score."
Do you know more? Email sam.sherwood@rnz.co.nz.
The police instructions relating to Case Management define an IFA score as "a numeric value derived from a series of weighted factors which gives an indication of the solvability of the case, based on the presence or absence of certain key lines of enquiry".
Retail NZ advocacy manager Ann-Marie Johnson told RNZ on Monday the organisation was seeking an "urgent meeting" with Police Minister Mark Mitchell to discuss the directive further "and to understand if anything has changed in the police's approach to retail crime".
"In an ideal world, police would have the resources to attend and investigate every report of crime. Unfortunately retailers know this is not the case. Retail NZ has consistently advocated for police to have more resourcing.
"We have also formed a working group comprising a number of large retailers which is developing agreed approaches to crime prevention measures including legislative change and technology like Facial Recognition Technology."
Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young is a member of the Ministerial Advisory Group for the victims of retail crime.
Johnson said Retail NZ recently published a report which identified that 99 percent of respondents, representing more than 1500 stores across New Zealand and online, experienced some form of retail crime or anti-social behaviour. There were more than 140,000 incidents through 2023-24.
"The incidents ranged from credit card fraud and shoplifting through to threatening behaviour, criminal damage and physical assault."
Johnson said about 40 percent of the retail crimes were not reported to police.
"There were a range of reasons why respondents did not report incidents to police, such as low value items not being worth the effort; the retailer discovered the offence too late or dealt with it directly. Some also raised concerns that Police would not do anything."
Retail NZ continued to encourage members to report all crime incidents to the police, regardless of the scale of the offending, Johnson said.
"Our understanding is that all reports of retail crime are sent to the National Retail Investigative Support Unit so that they can track the full extent of retail crime, supporting Police to assign appropriate resources and keep track of repeat offenders."
She said the cost of retail crime was about $2.6 billion a year in New Zealand.
"This cost flows through from retailers to customers to the New Zealand economy, and so is a major brake on the retail sector's contribution to economic growth.
"Every day, retailers are dealing with threatening, violent or simply unpleasant customers, who are trying to steal or damage their property. Almost every retail worker has been affected by crime and aggression which is traumatic for those directly involved and their colleagues. This is a serious health and safety issue for retail employers."
Mitchell declined to comment when approached on Friday. RNZ has requested further comment in response to Retail NZ's statement.
Directive 'taken out of context'
On Friday, police's National Retail Investigation Support Manager Matt Tierney confirmed police was "standardising" its approach to reports of lower-level crime, "ensuring more consistency nationwide" and freeing up frontline staff to focus on "the most significant incidents and prolific offenders."
He said there was no change to the way police assessed and responded to reports of "lower-level crime".
Tierney said that if a 111 call was placed regarding an incident such as shoplifting which had just occurred, and the offender was still there or had only just left, this had always been - and would continue to be prioritised for dispatch by police.
"This means that, pending availability, officers will typically be immediately dispatched. This is regardless of the value of goods taken.
"However, the reality is that police cannot attend every such report right away - but we need people to keep reporting incidents to us, so we continue to have a picture of when and where offending is occurring."
He said the public could be "rest assured" that each report had always been, and would continue to be, assessed on its individual merits.
"Reports through 105, or Auror, where there is clear accompanying evidence to support a potential prosecution - CCTV, for example - will continue to be forwarded to Districts for further follow-up.
"However, if there is no provided or potential further evidence to support a report below a certain threshold, the possible lines of enquiry are limited - meaning that unless further supporting evidence comes to light, no further action can be taken."
Tierney said police knew it was "likely to be frustrating for victims" if police cannot progress their report.
"We would continue to urge people to report all offending, no matter how low-level. It is this information that allows us to track patterns, and link offences together - potentially leading to significant prosecutions.
"Police's focus is on holding the most harmful retail offenders to account, meaning those who are undertaking brazen and dangerous retail offending, such as aggravated robbery."
Further pressed on the directive by RNZ's Checkpoint, Tierney said the value of the crime did not change the way that police investigate.
Asked what police would do if the offender had left the scene after stealing $450 worth of goods and police were called, Tierney said it depended on the level of evidence available.
He said the examples given in the directive would be "investigated as part of a wider investigation" into offenders when police are "looking at the offender as a whole".
Tierney said the document seen by RNZ was not his document and that it was an internal email sent out by another senior police officer.
Asked if police's position had changed since the directive was sent out, he said it had not.
"But it needs to be read and understood in its entirety. You're focusing on the value that's not the whole entirety of the email."
Asked what the purpose of supplying the dollar values was, he said Checkpoint would have to ask the author of the report.
Tierney said police would be seeking prosecutions on files below the financial levels.
He said the directive had been "taken out of context and possibly misunderstood".
"Police will 100 percent investigate crimes, irrespective of value."
"I can assure the New Zealand public that that person will be prosecuted and put before the courts. There's no change in that at all. Whether they're arrested on site or arrested later after the fact, and it could be, you know, up to a year after the fact, they'll still be held to account for whatever that value is."
He said he had only been made aware of the email after RNZ made inquiries.
"There's multiple 1000s of emails that go through police every day. I'm not privy to all of them, so it's not unusual, but it's good that it has come through, and we can seek clarification and we can explain how we can explain our point."
In response to further questions a police spokesperson said while the wording of the directive RNZ had seen "could have been clearer", it must not be considered in isolation.
"There have been a number of conversations and discussions around getting this to a nationally-consistent place.
"This is more of a back-channel streamlining of initial report assessment - practically speaking, the public can be reassured that if there is something for police to follow-up with, we will do so."
ISSUE
