The bill would introduce a new power for retailers to pre-emptively trespass a person from multiple locations. Section 4(2) of the Trespass Act allows for a pre-emptive trespass warning from a place other than where it was given. However, an occupier must have reasonable cause to suspect that the trespassed person intends to go to that place in the future. Consequently, the courts have generally considered multi-location trespass lawful only in specific circumstances. The person giving the warning must have authority over all the premises identified. They must also have reasonable cause to suspect that the person is likely to trespass on every place listed in the warning. This can be difficult to prove in a retail environment, resulting in people who have been trespassed from one location moving to another to continue unwanted behaviour.

To address this issue, clause 6 of the bill would insert new sections 4A and 4B. It would empower occupiers of specified retail premises to trespass someone from multiple locations with no limit on the geographic location. The person would not need to have trespassed at the locations, and the occupier would not need to show that the person intended to go to any of them. Clause 6 would give the occupier the discretion to trespass a person for any period up to 3 years (including on behalf of other occupiers of other specified retail premises provided they have authority to do so).

Under proposed new section 4A the power would apply to a single owner of multiple premises, such as some supermarkets or chain stores. Proposed new section 4B would apply to franchises, high streets, and malls, which have numerous occupiers.

On 7 April 2026, the Minister of Justice wrote to us requesting that we consider closely the implications of this new power on people who are trespassed from multiple locations.

We discussed the scope, scale, and fairness of the multi-location trespass provisions. We have no concerns about trespassing a person from one location, and support the ability of retailers to trespass people from multiple locations. However, we want to ensure that the multi-location provision is not used unreasonably and is proportionate to the offending.

We note that the bill’s provisions would enable an occupier of specified retail premises to trespass an individual from every location across New Zealand. We are concerned about situations where smaller retailers may not understand the options available under the legislation. For example, a supermarket operator in a small town could trespass a person from every outlet across the country for the maximum three years simply because the legislation allows it, but this may be disproportionate to the scale of offending. We are also concerned about situations, particularly in more isolated areas, where a trespassed person may have difficulty accessing essential items like food. We understand that options to mitigate the effect of the warning, such as online shopping, would not be available to everyone. We discussed whether the multi-location provisions could be limited to certain geographical locations or require certain factors to be considered. Factors might include the person’s circumstances or the likelihood of them going to other locations.

We sought advice on amending the bill to include one of three options. They are:

• 1.

  reverting to the “reasonable cause to suspect” test under section 4(2) of the Act

• 2.

  introducing a new “reasonable in the circumstances test”, which could set out factors such as previous behaviour

• 3.

  retaining the current multi-location power, but with a trespass period of up to 1 year instead of up to 3 years, as proposed in the bill.

We authorised Ministry of Justice officials to liaise with Retail NZ on the three options. In Retail NZ’s view, of the 3 options, only option 2 would be an appropriate option for occupiers of specified retail premises, but only if the retail sector was consulted when determining the factors that would constitute “reasonable”. It suggested that option 2 be accompanied by guidance setting out behaviour that would meet the new “reasonable in the circumstances” test. We discuss that guidance later in our commentary.

We consider that the bill should be amended to include a reasonableness test. We also consider that the legislation should include factors for occupiers of specified retail premises and the courts (when considering a criminal prosecution) to take into account when determining what is reasonable. We discussed what factors to include, noting that behaviour could vary greatly, ranging from stealing sweets to using violence, or involving theft on a large scale. We agreed on the following factors:

• the nature of the behaviour during the trespass, including any actual or threatened violence or use of a weapon

• the reoccurrence and scale of the behaviour

• the geographical reach of the trespass warning

• any other factor that is relevant in the circumstances.

We recommend inserting new sections 4A(2A) and 4B(2B) to this effect. Our proposed amendments provide that a multi-location warning could only be given if it was reasonable in the circumstances, having regard to all of the above factors.

As noted earlier, Retail NZ requests that supporting guidance be developed. The guidance should accompany the legislation, rather than be in it, so it could be easily adapted as the retail sector and wider community evolve over time. Retail NZ considers it crucial that any guidance be written in close consultation with the retail sector. It pointed out that it is difficult for outsiders to understand the breadth and severity of the threat and challenges that retail workers are experiencing. Retail NZ said that the retail sector would prefer to lead the development and design of the guidance, providing feedback to the Ministry of Justice.

The following are matters that Retail NZ would like the guidance to contain:

• the standard of documentation that would be expected when issuing a multi-location warning

• further information about the proportionality of a trespass warning

• a tiered framework and certain thresholds as to what would be a reasonable response to a range of offending

• a framework regarding the scope of geographic or regional multi-location trespass orders.

We have recommended above that the bill be amended to include factors that would need to be regarded when determining the reasonableness of a multi-location trespass warning. However, we agree that guidance that is not in legislation would also help to provide clarity about the operation of the legislation and retailers’ obligations. This is particularly true for smaller retailers who may not have access to things like legal support.

We urge the ministry to work with the retail sector to develop guidance that assists retailers and other occupiers to apply the legislation. The Ministry of Justice has advised that it will be for the courts to interpret the reasonableness test for multi-location trespass. It will therefore be important that guidance does not give information that later proves inconsistent with the findings of a court. We suggest that the guidance be added to and developed over time as case law becomes available.

Section 11(2)(a) of the Act contains the penalties for offences under sections 3, 4, and 12. Section 12 deals with situations where someone is convicted of a trespass offence and they are proven to have been carrying a weapon at the time of the offending. Section 12(1)(b) enables a court to make an order prohibiting a person who is convicted of a trespass offence from carrying any weapon, or one in a specified class, for a period of up to 2 years. The penalty for breaching the court order is $1,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months.

Clause 8 of the bill as introduced would amend section 11(2)(a). It would double the maximum fine for the offence under sections 3, 4, 4A, 4B, and 12 to $2,000. However, we understand that the section 12 offence was not part of the MAG’s review or final recommendations and is not related to the policy changes in the bill. Accordingly, we recommend amending clause 8 so the penalty for the offence under section 12 remains unchanged.