What is it about?
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 discusses these issues.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
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.
Perspectives
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.
Associate Professor Clare Farmer
Deakin University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Victoria’s banning notice provisions: parliamentary, procedural and individual vulnerabilities, Journal of Criminological Research Policy and Practice, September 2016, Emerald,
DOI: 10.1108/jcrpp-08-2015-0040.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
