The pursuit of exclusion through zonal banning

Abstract

In recent years, a growing emphasis has been placed on the use of zonal banning to address violence and anti-social behaviour associated with alcohol consumption. While we recognise the longer historical links between territory and crime, this article focuses on recent efforts to govern territory through new zonal regulations. Recent processes in Australia involve the conflation criminal law principles with processes of managing order in and around private spaces through new administrative approaches to alcohol-related law enforcement. The article outlines the nature of sub-sovereign 'police laws' and the extent to which they have been used based on Victorian data. We conclude by suggesting these developments need ongoing critical scrutiny given evidence of the ongoing expansion of proprietary-based principles in the management of urban disorder, and the potential for these developments to promote the increased use of surveillance technologies to exclude undesirable populations from the nighttime economies of Australian cities.

Drug policing assemblages: Repressive drug policies and the zonal banning of drug users in Denmark’s club land

“…Within these networks public and private actors are expected to collaborate and take responsibility for nightlife safety (Hadfield et al, 2009;Hadfield, & Measham, 2015;van Liempt, 2015;Søgaard, Houborg, & Tutenges, 2016). Recent studies have also argued that spatial bans, such as private club bans (Hobbs et al, 2003;Room, 2012) and police-issued (zonal) banning orders, have gained prominence in the regulation of unruly drinkers (Hadfield et al, 2009;Palmer, & Warren, 2014). In this article, we argue that such spatial measures aimed at controlling people by controlling territory (Sack, 1986) are also increasingly used to regulate and deter clubbers' use of drugs.…”

“…Though the police continue to play a central role in the enforcement of drug laws, we demonstrate how Danish authorities' ambition to ban drug users have included attempts to get venue owners and bouncers to use their resources and legal powers to detect and exclude drug offenders from entire nightlife districts. Others have pointed to the growing importance of publicprivate collaboration and administrative and civil law in the regulation of nightlife spaces (Hadfield, Lister, & Traynor, 2009;Palmer, & Warren, 2014). However, little is known about how the internal dynamics of partnership policing affect the establishment of nightlife order and the enforcement of nightlife zonal bans (van Liempt, 2015).…”

Penalising Presence in Public Space: Control through Exclusion of the ‘Difficult’ and ‘Undesirable

“…However, an ASBO could also ban its recipient from entering designated spaces, ranging from a specific property to a whole neighbourhood, making mere presence in the proscribed location(s) a breach of the Order. There is a distinct parallel here with the way in which the ordinances discussed by Beckett and Herbert (2009) and Palmer and Warren (2014) operate. The designation of zones from which problem populations could be excluded was, however, a feature of another first generation ASB control mechanism.…”

A mapping review of evaluations of alcohol policy restrictions targeting alcohol-related harm in night-time entertainment precincts

“…While NEP bans for alcohol-related offences are common in Australia, there is yet to be an analysis to determine how the scale of banning impacts the safety within a NEP (Palmer & Warren, 2014). Patron bans in the United Kingdom have been praised by police as a useful deterrent for alcohol-related violence (Hadfield, Lister, & Traynor, 2009), however there have also been doubts about how useful they would be in larger cities with multiple NEPs, where individuals may attend other areas they are not banned from (Burrell & Erol, 2009).…”