Patron Banning in the Nightlife Entertainment Districts: A Key Informant Perspective

Curtis, Ashlee; Palmer, Darren; Warren, Ian; McFarlane, Emma

doi:10.15288/jsad.2016.77.606

Cited by 21 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If a police ban is both uncertain and not intrinsically a punishment, it becomes less clear how such a ban will constitute a deterrent or prompt recipients to change their behaviour. Such a contradiction perhaps reflects confusion about the wider purpose of banning and presumptions about its effectiveness (it is noted that, to date, there has been limited research examining the effectiveness of police banning in Australia . It is also indicative of a broader issue, whereby the consequences of policies which are framed as preventive and not deemed to constitute a criminal punishment can be trivialised .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Australia's police‐imposed public area banning powers be subject to independent oversight and review?

Farmer

2019

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and Aims Jurisdictions across Australia have implemented policies to tackle problems associated with alcohol consumption in and around licensed premises. Patron banning is one measure which has become increasingly popular. Discretionary police‐imposed bans can exclude recipients from expansive public areas for extended periods of time. Concern has been expressed regarding the potential for bans to be imposed inappropriately or unfairly and their capacity to undermine due process. This article examines an aspect of police‐imposed banning that has received little attention, the general absence of options for independent or judicial review of the imposition of a ban. Design and Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with Magistrates in Victoria. Key themes are examined with reference to Victoria's published police banning data, parliamentary debates and other relevant literature. Results The findings draw attention to issues of procedural fairness, the risk of misuse and consequential effects for police legitimacy arising from the operation of discretionary police‐imposed bans. Discussion and Conclusions The Victorian Parliament dismissed the option of an independent post‐hoc appeal process for police‐imposed bans. The discretionary nature of police bans, the absence of meaningful oversight and the attendant potential for their misuse point to the need for the legislation covering police bans to be revised to introduce an independent process of review. This issue extends beyond Victoria, as six of the eight Australian jurisdictions do not permit any independent review of a police decision to impose a public area ban.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Australia's police‐imposed public area banning powers be subject to independent oversight and review?

Farmer

2019

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, one notable consequence of implementing a range of responses is the difficulty of discerning the specific or particular effect of any individual measure. In the context of the multi-faceted provisions which have been implemented to tackle issues of alcohol-related disorder, it is acknowledged that the particular effects of individual reforms are difficult to isolate (Menendez et al, 2015;Miller et al, 2014Miller et al, , 2016.…”

Section: Responses To Alcohol-related Disorder In the Ntementioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is possible, for example, that the rationale for a ban could be personal or discriminatory rather than based upon actual behaviour. If the exclusion is imposed under the auspices of a local Liquor Accord, the individual would also be banned from all premises within the Accord (Miller et al, 2016).…”

Section: Overview Of Patron Banning Provisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The steady proliferation of Australia’s discretionary police-imposed patron banning powers: An unsubstantiated cycle of assertion and presumption

Farmer

Curtis

2017

Criminology & Criminal Justice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patron banning in Australia embodies a range of exclusionary measures in response to alcoholrelated disorder. Patrons can be banned from licensed venues, entertainment precincts or wider public areas. Banning mechanisms remove and exclude troublesome individuals and are presumed to deter them, and others, from engaging in further problematic behaviour. The use of exclusion reflects key assumptions in relation to alcohol-related disorderly behaviour and effective management of risks to which it may give rise. However, the rationale underpinning much of the banning-related legislative and operational policing developments reflects largely unsubstantiated assertions of need and effect. Despite the steady expansion of banning powers across Australian jurisdictions there is limited oversight of their use. This article examines the expansion of police-imposed banning powers. Their discretionary, on-the-spot and permissible pre-emptive imposition has potential consequences that extend beyond the management of alcohol-related issues. Yet their use and effect has been subject to little scrutiny.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, dominant discourses on the effects of patron banning orders also provide evidence of a delimited notion of causality, in that deterrence and crime reduction are often the only effects deemed worthy of consideration by authorities, while other possible effects are overlooked or defined as irrelevant. This line of thinking is today also reflected in attempts to measure the precise crime- and harm reduction effects of patron banning orders (Conigrave, Proude, & d’Abbs, 2007, cited in Room, 2012), though this has proved difficult (Miller, Curtis, Palmer, Warren, & McFarlane, 2016). Today, it is not just discourses on patron banning that are characterized by linear and delimited models of causality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While existing research on patron banning has examined authorities’ governance through banning strategies and attempted to outline the legal properties and benefits of banning orders in reducing alcohol-related harm in nightlife (Hadfield et al, 2009; Miller et al, 2016; Palmer & Warren, 2014; Room, 2012; Søgaard, Houborg, & Pedersen, 2017), there is currently very little research on those who are the targets of banning policies. 2 This is a problem because much research has demonstrated that the outcome of policies is as much a result of local settings and the actors involved as they are of top-down decisions (Aitken et al, 2002; Maher & Dixon, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voices of the Banned

Søgaard

2017

Contemporary Drug Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Western cities, public authorities are increasingly resorting to the use of patron banning orders as means of reducing alcohol and other drug-related harms in nightlife. While the use of banning orders is often hailed by authorities, due to their presumed deterrent and crime reduction effects, little research exists on how patrons react to being banned. This is a problem, as assessments of whether the policy goals of banning orders are being met, and of the wider consequences of banning, necessitate understanding the practice from the perspective of its targets. This article combines statistical data from police registers, and in-depth interviews with 10 young patrons who have been subjected to a two year banning order in Aalborg, Denmark, to explore how patrons experience and negotiate the banning orders imposed upon them. While police use of patron banning orders is often based on a conception of patrons as rational actors, as well as on linear notions of cause and effect, this article challenges such conceptions. Instead, the article draws on actor network theory, and an understanding of banned youth as situated in networks of relations, in order to provide insights into how the effects of banning policies emerge in often unpredictable ways and with unforeseeable consequences dependent on the specific socio-material contexts through which they are co-produced.In this way the article aims to provide a more detailed understanding of the causal mechanisms giving shape to banning policy effects.

show abstract

Patron Banning in the Nightlife Entertainment Districts: A Key Informant Perspective

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Should Australia's police‐imposed public area banning powers be subject to independent oversight and review?

Should Australia's police‐imposed public area banning powers be subject to independent oversight and review?

The steady proliferation of Australia’s discretionary police-imposed patron banning powers: An unsubstantiated cycle of assertion and presumption

Voices of the Banned

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About