Policy efforts based on evidence about risk for re-victimisation both protect some of the most vulnerable people in society and have a good chance of reducing crime levels overall (Farrell and Pease, 1993; Grove et al., 2012; Pease et al., 2018). While research has established that the phenomenon of re-victimisation is ubiquitous, less is known about what makes some people more vulnerable to re-victimisation than others (Hamilton and Browne, 1998; Nazaretian and Fitch, 2021). Enhanced understanding of who these people are is thus crucial for developing contemporary victim-centred crime prevention policy. Victimology theories suggest that people at high risk of victimisation are typified by multiple overlapping and intersecting personal characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity, class, disability status, sexual identity), rather than forming homogeneous higher-order groups (e.g., delineated by a single personal characteristic; Shoham et al, 2010; Walklate, 2012). Accordingly, in this study we examined socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, disability status, sexual identity) of people who were re-victimised, with an emphasis on intersectionality. That is, we focused on identifying where the co-occurrence of socio-demographic characteristics intensified risk of re-victimisation. We use re-victimisation as an umbrella term to cover: • Poly-victimisation (i.e., >1 victimisation for different types of crime), and • Repeat-victimisation (i.e., >1 victimisation for different types of crime) for 11 different crime types. We therefore analysed 12 different types of re-victimisation over five waves of the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey (NZCVS) in the privacy- and security-protected environment of Statistics New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) with Conjunctive Analysis of Case Configurations. This method enabled us to position groups (i.e., combinations of characteristics) as the unit of analysis and identify where intersecting characteristics were associated with high rates of re-victimisation and isolate when particular individual characteristics were especially noteworthy. This research makes four important contributions to the evidence base on victimisation. First, while re-victimisation experiences have been studied for a range of crime types internationally (see Farrell et al., 2005), this is the first research to do so for Aotearoa New Zealand. Second, it adds to the scant evidence base on poly-victimisation. Third, it corroborates the empirical findings from other countries that risk of re-victimisation increases cumulatively (Johnson et al., 1997), hence the need for policies and practices that get upstream of the problem and prevent re-victimisation at the earliest opportunity. Fourth, this research advances knowledge on how socio-demographic characteristics intersect to elevate risk of re-victimisation. The findings are relevant for policymakers developing victimisation prevention programmes across various organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand.