Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ‘Problem’ of Victoria’s Banning Notice Provisions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Discretionary Police Powers to Punish

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Criminology ((BRIEFSCRIMINOL))

  • 313 Accesses

Abstract

This final chapter draws together the key findings from the research. It highlights the incongruity between claims made to secure the passage of Victoria’s police-imposed banning provisions, and the absence of ongoing scrutiny and analysis of their use. While the actual effect of banning upon undesirable behaviours in the night-time economy is not sufficiently monitored or understood, the consequences for the separation of powers and the individual rights of recipients are clear. The dissonance between the assumptions and language used to justify the need for police powers to ban and the broader consequences of the absence of meaningful oversight is significant. The specific findings in relation to Victoria’s banning notices epitomise core concerns about pre-emptive and preventive justice, which have been expressed across a range of international contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Other models of the criminal process are acknowledged, such as Llewellyn’s (1962) parental and arm’s length models, and the hierarchical and co-ordinate models depicted by Damaska (1975), which align broadly with European and Anglo-American traditions.

  2. 2.

    Examples include Ashworth (1996, 2004b), Zedner (2002, 2003, 2005, 2007a, b, c, 2014), Waldron (2003), Tonry (2003), Michaelsen (2005, 2006, 2010), Williams (2006, 2007a, b), Neocleous (2007), Ashworth and Zedner (2008), Bronitt (2008), and Pue (2008).

  3. 3.

    The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is the only jurisdiction without such provisions.

  4. 4.

    Curtis et al. (2018) provides a preliminary consideration of the potential deterrent effect of banning provisions in Victoria.

  5. 5.

    The data regarding vulnerable recipients of Victoria’s banning notices is set out in Sect. 3.4.1b.

  6. 6.

    Unlike Western Australia, where the names, photographs and town/suburb of residence of Prohibition Order (Liquor Control Act 1988) and Probihited Behaviour Order (Prohibited Behaviour Order Act 2010) recipients are published online. These orders replicate aspects of Victoria’s banning notices, but are not identical provisions.

  7. 7.

    In Queensland, for example, ID scanners at licensed venues link to a wider system which enables a prospective patron’s ID to be cross-checked against a database of people in receipt of banning orders.

  8. 8.

    As an amendment to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

  9. 9.

    The issue of a right of independent appeal was prominent during parliamentary debate of Victoria’s first banning bill in 2007, but a proposed amendment did not gain approval.

References

  • Andrews, D. (2017). Powerful new laws to keep Victorians safe from terror. Premier of Victoria Media Release, 21 September 2017. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria. Available at: https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/170921-Powerful-New-Laws-To-Keep-Victorians-Safe-From-Terror.pdf.

  • Ashworth, A. (1996). Crime, community and creeping consequentialism. Criminal Law Review, 220–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2004a). Social control and ‘Anti Social Behaviour’: The subversion of human rights? Law Quarterly Review, 120, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2004b). Criminal Justice Act 2003: Part 2: Criminal justice reform—principles, human rights and public protection. Criminal Law Review, 516–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2006). Four threats to the presumption of innocence. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 10, 241–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2010). The Criminal Process (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2008). Defending the criminal law: Reflections on the changing character of crime, procedure and sanctions. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2, 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronitt, S. (2008). Balancing security and liberty: Critical perspectives on terrorism law reform. In M. Gani & P. Mathew (Eds.), Fresh perspectives on the ‘War on Terror’ (pp. 65–84). Canberra: ANU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A. (2013). ‘Sticks and carrots and sermons’: Some thoughts on compliance and legitimacy in the regulation of youth anti-social behaviour. In A. Crawford & A. Hucklesby (Eds.), Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice (pp. 181–214). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, A., Taylor, N., Guadagno, B., Farmer, C., & Miller, P. (2018). Community awareness of patron banning in Australia: A brief report. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology [in press].

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaska, M. R. (1975). Structures of authority and comparative criminal procedure. Yale Law Journal, 84, 480–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dripps, D. A. (2011). The substance-procedure relationship in criminal Law. In R. A Duff & S. P Green (Eds.), philosophical foundations of criminal law (pp. 409–432). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubber, M. D. (2002). Policing possession: The war on crime and the end of criminal law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 91(4), 829–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubber, M. D. (2005). The possession paradigm: The special part and the police power model of the criminal process. In R. A Duff & S. P Green (Eds.), Defining crimes: Essays on the special part of the criminal law (pp. 91–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubber, M. D. (2006). Criminal law in comparative context. Journal of Legal Education, 56(3), 433–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubber, M. D. (2011). Regulatory and legal aspects of penality. In A. Sarat, L. Douglas, & M. M. Umphrey (Eds.), Law as punishment, law as regulation (pp. 19–49). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, C., Curtis, A., & Miller, P. (2017). The steady proliferation of Australia’s discretionary police-imposed banning powers: An unsubstantiated cycle of assertion and presumption. Criminology & Criminal Justice [published online 27/9/17].

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, K. N. (1962). Jurisprudence: Realism in theory and practice. Chicago: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menendez P., Weatherburn D., & Kyrpi K., et al. (2015). Lockouts and last drinks: The impact of the January 2014 liquor licence reforms on assaults in NSW, Australia. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 183 (April). Available at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/CJB183.pdf.

  • Michaelsen, C. (2005). Antiterrorism legislation in Australia: A proportionate response to the terrorist threat? Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 28(4), 321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelsen, C. (2006). Balancing civil liberties against national security? A critique of counter-terrorism Rhetoric. UNSW Law Journal, 29(2), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelsen, C. (2010). The proportionality principle, counter-terrorism laws and human rights: A German-Australian comparison. City University of Hong Kong Law Review, 2(1), 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., Curtis, A., Palmer, D., et al. (2014). Changes in injury-related hospital emergency department presentations associated with the imposition of regulatory versus voluntary licensing conditions on licensed venues in two cities. Drug and Alcohol Review, 33, 314–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., Curtis, A., Palmer, D., et al. (2016). Patron banning in the nightlife entertainment districts: A key informant perspective. Journal of Studies on Alcohol & Drugs, 77(4), 606–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neocleous, M. (2007). Security, liberty and the myth of balance: Towards a critique of security politics. Contemporary Political Theory, 6, 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. L. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113(1), 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pue, W. W. (2008). Protecting constitutionalism in treacherous times: Why ‘Rights’ Don’t matter. In M. Gani & P. Mathew (Eds.), Fresh perspectives on the ‘War on Terror’ (pp. 45–64). Canberra: ANU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, K. (1999). Criminology: Four models of the criminal process. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78(2), 699–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (2003). Confronting crime: Crime control policy under new labour. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. (2003). Security and liberty: The image of balance. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (2006). The victorian charter of human rights and responsibilities: Origins and scope. Melbourne University Law Review, 30, 880–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (2007a). Victoria’s new charter: Human rights and the community. Just Policy, 43, 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (2007b, February). Lessons from victoria’s charter of human rights and responsibilities. Law Society Journal, 68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2002). Dangers of dystopias in penal theory (extended review of David Garland, the culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 22(2), 341–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2003). Too much security? International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 31(3), 155–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2005). Securing liberty in the face of terror; reflections from criminal justice. Journal of Law and Society, 32(4), 507–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2007a). Preventive justice or pre-punishment? the case of control orders. Current Legal Problems, 60(1), 174–2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2007b). Seeking security by eroding rights: The side-stepping of due process. In B. Goold & L. Lazarus (Eds.), Security and human rights (pp. 257–275). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2007c). Pre-crime and post-criminology? Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 261–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2014). Terrorising criminal law. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 8, 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Geelong, VIC, Australia

    Clare Farmer

Authors
  1. Clare Farmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clare Farmer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Farmer, C. (2018). The ‘Problem’ of Victoria’s Banning Notice Provisions. In: Discretionary Police Powers to Punish. SpringerBriefs in Criminology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8869-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8869-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8868-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8869-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation