Advertisement

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 283–287 | Cite as

Community Awareness of Patron Banning in Australia: a Brief Report

  • Ashlee Curtis
  • Nicholas Taylor
  • Belinda Guadagno
  • Clare Farmer
  • Peter Miller
Article

Abstract

Patron banning involves banning individuals who engage in problematic behaviour in night time entertainment precincts from certain areas. Patron banning is used in most jurisdictions within Australia despite a lack of evidence regarding its effectiveness. To have an impact, patron banning should act as a deterrent for problematic behaviour at a range of licenced premises (individual and general deterrence), as well as constituting as an immediate punishment which prevents future problem behaviours at the establishment(s) from which an individual has been banned (incapacitation). However, for deterrence to occur, the general public must be aware of the existence and basic functions of patron banning. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the level of public awareness of patron banning and its use. One hundred seventy-two participants anonymously completed an online questionnaire, comprising two sections: (1) demographic information and (2) participant’s awareness, understanding, and previous experience with patron banning. The majority of participants indicated being aware of patron banning, but most did not know any details about it. The results of this study indicate that while individuals are aware that banning powers exist, they are less aware of how these powers are used in practice. In this way, patron banning fails to fulfil the requirements of a general deterrent. Given its expanding use, further research is needed to determine if patron banning does affect the behaviour of those receiving bans and of the community more generally.

Keywords

Alcohol-related harm Nightlife Intervention Patron banning Licenced venue 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by an internal research grant from the Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development within the School of Psychology, Deakin University.

Compliance and Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Peter Miller receives funding from Australian Research Council and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from NSW Government, National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Cancer Council Victoria, Queensland government and Australian Drug Foundation, travel and related costs from Australasian Drug Strategy Conference. He is affiliated with academic journal Addiction. He has acted as a paid expert witness on behalf of a licenced venue and a security firm.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Deakin University Health Ethics Advisory Group prior to commencement of the study. All procedures performed in study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Deakin University Health Ethics Advisory Group and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Bellis MA, Hughes K (2011) Getting drunk safely? Night-life policy in the UK and its public health consequences. Drug Alcohol Rev 30(5):536–545.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00290.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Curtis A, Miller P, Droste N, McFarlane E, Martino F, Palmer D (2016) ‘The ones that turn up are the ones that are responsible’: key stakeholders perspectives on liquor accords. Drug Alcohol Rev 35(3):273–279.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12407 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Curtis A, Coomber K, Droste N, Hyder S, Palmer D, Miller PG (2017) Effectiveness of community-based interventions for reducing alcohol-related harm in two metropolitan and two regional sites in Victoria, Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev 36(3):359–368.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12501 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Farmer C (2014) ‘Is a 24-hour ban such a bad thing?’ Police-imposed banning notices: compatible with human rights or a diminution of due process? Aust J Hum Rights 20(2):39–61.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1323-238X.2014.11882149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farmer C (2016a) Upholding whose right? Discretionary police powers to punish, collective ‘pre-victimisation’ and the dilution of individual rights. Aust N Z J Criminol 50(4):493–509.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865816660351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farmer C (2016b) Victoria’s banning notice provisions: parliamentary, procedural and individual vulnerabilities. J Criminol Res Policy Pract 2(3):173–184.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-08-2015-0040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farmer C (2017) The disparity between human rights policy and parliamentary practice in Australia: a Victorian case study. Int J Hum Rights 21(2):167–188.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2016.1260008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Manning M, Smith C, Mazerolle P (2013) The societal costs of alcohol misuse in Australia. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice. Australian Institute of Criminology, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller P, Tindall J, Sonderlund A, Groombridge D, Lecathelinais C, Gillham K, . . . Wiggers J (2012) Dealing with alcohol and the night-time economy (DANTE): final report. Retrieved from Geelong, Victoria: http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_43.pdf
  10. Miller P, Curtis A, Palmer D, Warren I, McFarlane E (2016) Patron banning in the nightlife entertainment districts: a key informant perspective. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 77(4):606–611.  https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2016.77.606 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Morgan A, McAtamney A (2009) Key issues in alcohol-related violence. Research in practice. Australian Institute of Criminology, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  12. Palmer D, Warren I (2014) The pursuit of exclusion through zonal banning. Aust N Z J Criminol 47(3):429–446.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865813514064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Room R (2012) Individualized control of drinkers: back to the future? Contemp Drug Probl 39(2):311–343.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009145091203900207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stafford MC, Warr M (1993) A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. J Res Crime Delinq 30(2):125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology, Faculty of HealthDeakin University Waterfront CampusGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.School of Humanities and Social SciencesDeakin University Waurn Ponds Campus GeelongWaurn PondsAustralia

Personalised recommendations