Victoria’s banning notice provisions: parliamentary, procedural and individual vulnerabilities
| Date | 19 September 2016 |
| Pages | 173-184 |
| Published date | 19 September 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-08-2015-0040 |
| Author | Clare Farmer |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Victoria’s banning notice provisions:
parliamentary, procedural and individual
vulnerabilities
Clare Farmer
Dr Clare Farmer is a Lecturer in
Criminology at Deakin
University, Geelong, Australia.
Abstract
Purpose –Alcohol-related disorder in Australia’s night-time economy h as precipitated an exp anding
regulatory and legislative framework. A key feature is the growth of police-imposed discretionary justice,
one example of which are Victoria’s banning provisions. Banning notices are imposed on-the-spot, may be
issued pre-emptively, but permit no right of independent appeal. However, there has been little analysis of
the enactment, impleme ntation or use of police-imposed banning prov isions. The paper aims to discuss
these issues.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper draws upon a detailed examination of the record of
parliamentary debate of the banning notice legislation to document how the provisions, and their embedded
procedural vulnerabilities, were legitimised. In addition, an analysis of Victoria Police data informs
consideration of the ongoing scrutiny of the police power to ban.
Findings –The absolute discretion afforded to police officers, and a lack of effective oversight, has created
the potential for the disproportionate and discriminatory implementation of Victoria’s banning notice powers.
The findings highlight procedural vulnerabilities within the provisions, and concern regarding the particular risk
of banning notices for vulnerable recipients.
Research limitations/implications –The natureof Victoria’s banning provisionscreated the circumstances
for theirinequitable imposition,but public scrutinyof their use and effect is limited.Omissions and deficienciesin
the published data restricts meaningful analysisof how banning works in practice.
Originality/value –The research underpinning this paper was the first detailed examination of the
implementation and ongoing scrutiny of Victoria’s banning notice provisions. The findings presented in this
paper highlight key procedural vulnerabilities resulting from the passage of the legislation and the absence of
effective oversight.
Keywords Justice, Policing, Victims, Risk, Evidence-based practice, Community safety
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Perceived public anxieties about security and community safety have given rise to a range of
legislative provisions, which are re-shaping the criminal process. Key developments include the
growth of discretionary police decision making and summary justice, the blurring of boundaries
between civil and criminal methods of determining liability, the use of pre-emptive police powers
to punish, the criminalisation of an expanding range of disorderly behaviours, and a growing
prioritisation of the collective rights of potential victims over the individual rights of alleged
offenders[1]. Alcohol-related behavioural problems, prompted in part by the growth of urban
entertainment precincts (Zajdow, 2011; Matthews et al., 2012), has been an area of particular
legislative, licensing, and operational policing activity across Australia (Nicho las, 2008;
Received 31 August 2015
Revised 16 December 2015
Accepted 14 January 2016
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-08-2015-0040 VOL. 2 NO. 3 2016, pp.173-184, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE
j
PAGE173
To continue reading
Request your trial