A Civilianised Summary Power to Exclude: Perceptual Deterrence, Compliance and Legitimacy

Abstract

As a response to alcohol-related disorderly behaviours, the use of exclusion has expanded steadily across Australian jurisdictions but with minimal analysis of its effects. Bans, from public or private locations, are typically imposed summarily and presumed to be a meaningful deterrent to future problematic behaviours. The formalisation of licensee banning powers has created a civilianised police-enforceable power to punish by exclusion. In Victoria, the legislative framing of licensee barring order provisions precludes formal monitoring of their use. This article reports findings from interviews conducted with recipients. The conceptual and situational value of barring orders are acknowledged, but their capacity to act as a tangible deterrent or effective agent for behaviour change is far from conclusive. Barring orders constitute a civilianised summary power, which currently operates without scrutiny or accountability. Implications for the operational legitimacy of barring powers emerge from this study, in addition to broader considerations with respect to compliance, enforcement, oversight, and the importance of developing and examining alcohol policies through a gendered lens.

How long should a patron ban be: an examination of police-imposed barring notice records in Western Australia

“…This follows earlier research (Farmer, 2014, 2018) which noted concerns about the discretionary and summary way in which police-imposed banning notices can be imposed in Victoria, including pre-emptively in anticipation of anti-social behaviour. Farmer (2021a, b) spoke with recipients of licensee bans in Victoria and identified a number of concerns with respect to their discretionary imposition, lack of oversight and the potential for their misuse. In particular, while there is some limited potential to review the imposition of a licensee ban, there are no consequences for licensees if a ban is found to have been imposed erroneously.…”

Key informant perspectives on the enforcement of police‐imposed barring notices and prohibition orders in Western Australia

“…Many banning measures can be implemented on-the-spot, by licensees or police officers [1,3]. Some concern has been expressed about the consequences for due process and the individual rights of recipients, the effectiveness of enforcement, as well as a lack of scrutiny of banning as a mechanism to address alcohol-related disorderly behaviours [2,4,5,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Despite limited evidence-based analysis of their effects, all Australian jurisdictions have now introduced one or more forms of patron banning [1,3].…”

Do patron bans affect subsequent behaviour? An examination of pre‐ and post‐ban offending for barring notice and prohibition order recipients in Western Australia

“…Banning provisions range from the discretionary facility for licensees to exclude individuals from their venues, through multi-venue bans under the auspices of local Liquor Accords, to on-the-spot policeimposed venue or public area bans, and court-imposed exclusion orders. Since 2010, the use of banning provisions has continued to expand both legislatively and operationally [3,4], although concern has been expressed about a lack of scrutiny of patron banning as a mechanism to address alcohol-related disorderly behaviours [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Despite limited evidence-based analysis of their effects and effectiveness, all Australian jurisdictions have now introduced one or more forms of patron banning [3].…”