Australia’s discretionary police-imposed banning powers: oversight, scrutiny and accountability

Farmer, Clare; Clifford, Robyn

doi:10.1080/15614263.2020.1712205

Cited by 12 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…… The appropriate response is to try and address the underlying causes of vulnerability, or the underlying concerns, rather than just throwing another fine on that list. FG2Belatedly, a body of international literature has begun to emerge that seeks to render more visible the intensity and destructiveness of fines and other 'legal financial obligations' (e.g., Harris 2016;Faraldo Cabana 2017;Martin et al 2018;Quilter and Hogg 2018). Our findings reinforce the urgent need to translate these insights and analyses into policy action.…”

Section: Fewer Fines More Wdosmentioning

confidence: 54%

Homelessness and Contact with the Criminal Justice System: Insights from Specialist Lawyers and Allied Professionals in Australia

McNamara

Quilter

Walsh

et al. 2020

Int J for Crime, Justice & Social Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lawyers and allied professionals who have experience supporting, advising and representing people experiencing homelessness are uniquely placed to identify problems with the operation of the criminal justice system—from policing to courts to punishment—and to conceive reform options. This article reports the findings of qualitative interviews with lawyers and allied professionals in all Australian states and territories. Participants identified multiple points where decisions about criminal law enforcement fail to take adequate account of the complex factors that underlie ‘offending’ by people experiencing homelessness, producing outcomes that exacerbate disadvantage. They advanced a range of proposals for reform directed at breaking the nexus between homelessness and criminalisation, including re-conception of the role of police, adoption of therapeutic jurisprudence (or ‘solution-focused’) models in criminal courts, and major changes to the use of fines as a criminal punishment.

show abstract

Section: Fewer Fines More Wdosmentioning

confidence: 54%

Homelessness and Contact with the Criminal Justice System: Insights from Specialist Lawyers and Allied Professionals in Australia

McNamara

Quilter

Walsh

et al. 2020

Int J for Crime, Justice & Social Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patron bans often form part of a suite of provisions implemented to address alcohol-related disorderly behaviours, and their effectiveness can be limited by the difficulty of discerning the effects of specific measures. Across Australia, banning provisions have typically been implemented without ongoing scrutiny of their use or effects (Farmer et al 2018(Farmer et al , 2021.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patron banning policy and practice in Queensland, Australia: key informant perspectives

Farmer

Robertson

Ferris

et al. 2022

Crime Prev Community Saf

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores attitudes to and experiences of patron banning policy (which prohibits an individual from entering a nightlife area or venue after engaging in anti-social behaviour) in Queensland, Australia. Key informant interviews were conducted with 66 participants from health, justice, industry, and government sectors across the state. Interviews were semi-structured, and transcripts were examined using thematic analysis. Overall, key informants reported that patron banning provisions helped to keep out customers who cause problems in venues and that ID scanners helped to enforce bans. There was some concern about displacement of banned patrons to other nightlife areas, the discretionary nature of venue bans, the potential for banning notices to be misused, and a general perception that police-imposed bans should be longer than the current 10 days. The majority of interviewees were supportive of patron banning and felt that it could (positively) affect patron behaviours. A number of recommendations were suggested to refine the framing and operation of Queensland’s banning policy.

show abstract

“…As a result, licensee barring exists in an accountability vacuum -without any understanding of how many have been imposed or what effects they may have had. A similar lack of scrutiny is evident with respect to patron banning more broadly across Australia (Farmer et al 2018;Farmer, Clifford and Miller 2020). The deterrent effects of spatial exclusion continue to be largely presumed but not subject to meaningful oversight or analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Banning provisions differ across jurisdictions but a common presumption is that the experience, or risk, of exclusion from a venue and/or local area will deter troublesome patrons (Farmer et al, 2018). However, without formal oversight of its use or effects, patron banning has become a politically expedient example of 'being seen to do something' rather than a genuine mechanism to promote tangible and sustainable behaviour change (Farmer 2019(Farmer , 2020Farmer, Clifford and Miller 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Farmer

2021

Int J for Crime, Justice & Social Democracy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Australia’s discretionary police-imposed banning powers: oversight, scrutiny and accountability

Cited by 12 publications

References 33 publications

Homelessness and Contact with the Criminal Justice System: Insights from Specialist Lawyers and Allied Professionals in Australia

Homelessness and Contact with the Criminal Justice System: Insights from Specialist Lawyers and Allied Professionals in Australia

Patron banning policy and practice in Queensland, Australia: key informant perspectives

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About