File(s) under permanent embargo
The disparity between human rights policy and parliamentary practice in Australia : a Victorian case study
Over the past decade alcohol-related violence in and around licensed premises has given rise to significant legislative, regulatory and operational policing developments. In Australia, the State of Victoria introduced police-imposed banning notices as part of a range of provisions and new powers targeting alcohol-related disorderly behaviour. Banning notices exemplify a broader shift towards discretionary, pre-emptive, regulatory, summary justice which circumvents the criminal law, dilutes individual rights, and reconfigures expectations of balance in the administration of justice.
The legal principles upon which banning notices are based and the way in which they were enacted by the Victorian Parliament challenge both the purpose and specific requirements of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Detailed analysis of the application of the Charter compliance processes to the banning notice provisions point to a notable disparity between the expectations of formal human rights policy and the reality of substantive practice. The broader effect of such a disconnect is potentially significant, but has been largely opaque to meaningful scrutiny.
The legal principles upon which banning notices are based and the way in which they were enacted by the Victorian Parliament challenge both the purpose and specific requirements of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Detailed analysis of the application of the Charter compliance processes to the banning notice provisions point to a notable disparity between the expectations of formal human rights policy and the reality of substantive practice. The broader effect of such a disconnect is potentially significant, but has been largely opaque to meaningful scrutiny.
