Victoria’s banning notice provisions: parliamentary, procedural and individual vulnerabilities

Farmer, Clare 2016, Victoria’s banning notice provisions: parliamentary, procedural and individual vulnerabilities, Journal of criminological research, policy & practice, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 173-184, doi: 10.1108/JCRPP-08-2015-0040.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Victoria’s banning notice provisions: parliamentary, procedural and individual vulnerabilities
Author(s) Farmer, ClareORCID iD for Farmer, Clare
Journal name Journal of criminological research, policy & practice
Volume number 2
Issue number 3
Start page 173
End page 184
Total pages 12
Publisher Emerald Group Publishing
Place of publication Bingley, Eng.
Publication date 2016
ISSN 2056-3841
Keyword(s) justice
evidence-based practice
community safety
Summary Purpose Alcohol-related disorder in Australia’s night-time economy has precipitated an expanding 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, implementation or use of police-imposed banning provisions. 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.

FindingsThe 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 nature of Victoria’s banning provisions created the circumstances for their inequitable imposition, but public scrutiny of their use and effect is limited. Omissions and deficiencies in the published data restricts meaningful analysis of 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.
Language eng
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-08-2015-0040
Field of Research 160201 Causes and Prevention of Crime
160203 Courts and Sentencing
160205 Police Administration, Procedures and Practice
Socio Economic Objective 940403 Criminal Justice
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2016, Emerald Group Publishing
Persistent URL

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Faculty of Arts and Education
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 6 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 4 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 354 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 25 Oct 2016, 15:50:46 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact