Do patron bans act as a deterrent to future anti-social offending? An analysis of banning and offending data from Victoria, Australia

Crime Prev Community Saf

Robertson

Ferris

et al. 2022

Self Cite

This paper explores attitudes to and experiences of patron banning policy (which prohibits an individual from entering a nightlife area or venue after engaging in anti-social behaviour) in Queensland, Australia. Key informant interviews were conducted with 66 participants from health, justice, industry, and government sectors across the state. Interviews were semi-structured, and transcripts were examined using thematic analysis. Overall, key informants reported that patron banning provisions helped to keep out customers who cause problems in venues and that ID scanners helped to enforce bans. There was some concern about displacement of banned patrons to other nightlife areas, the discretionary nature of venue bans, the potential for banning notices to be misused, and a general perception that police-imposed bans should be longer than the current 10 days. The majority of interviewees were supportive of patron banning and felt that it could (positively) affect patron behaviours. A number of recommendations were suggested to refine the framing and operation of Queensland’s banning policy.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patron banning policy and practice in Queensland, Australia: key informant perspectives

Crime Prev Community Saf

Robertson

Ferris

et al. 2022

Self Cite

“…Concerns were expressed about the possibility of displacement - banned patrons being able to go elsewhere and, as a result, not having any incentive to change their behaviour. This was raised as an issue in other Australian jurisdictions (Curtis et al 2022 ; Taylor et al 2021 ) and by Sogaard ( 2018 ) in relation to zonal banning in Denmark, and can serve to limit the specific and wider deterrent effects of bans.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of respondents demonstrated little knowledge, and Curtis et al questioned the extent to which banning fulfils the expectations of a general deterrent. Curtis et al ( 2022 ) examined the offending records of a small sample of banning notice recipients from one location in Victoria, and found no demonstrable reduction in the quantum or severity of offending behaviours following receipt of a ban. Interview research conducted in Victoria and the Australian state of Queensland (Miller et al 2016 , 2019 ) examined the perceived effects of patron banning and found support for banning as a deterrent to anti-social behaviours.…”

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a patron ban to act as an effective deterrent requires sufficient awareness of the presence of the provisions, and their possible application and consequence for recipients. Recent studies in the Australian state of Victoria examined the experiences and perceptions of licensee barring order recipients (Farmer 2019 , 2021a , b ), and the offending histories of police ban recipients (Curtis et al 2022 ). Both studies focused on the specific deterrent effects of the banning provisions for recipients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Examination of Community Awareness and Understanding of Patron Banning Provisions in Western Australia: Implications for Policy Development and Success

Kennedy

Saligari

et al. 2022

Eur J Crim Policy Res

Self Cite

Individuals who engage in problematic behaviours within Australian night-time entertainment precincts can be banned from entering certain locations. Bans are expected to deter recipients and the wider community from further inappropriate behaviours. The collective effect is intended to reduce crime and increase safety within entertainment precincts. This study examined public awareness and understanding of two patron banning mechanisms (police barring notices and prohibition orders) used across Western Australia (WA). An anonymous survey was completed by 1018 respondents, and interviews were conducted with 54 stakeholders. Survey participants had limited awareness of patron banning: 75% had not heard of police barring notices; 87% had not heard of prohibition orders. Knowledge was higher for individuals directly associated with a ban recipient. Stakeholders also perceived a low level of community awareness and understanding of patron banning. Patron banning may have some merit as a specific deterrent for recipients but, in WA, the lack of public knowledge means that the banning provisions may currently have limited effect as a general deterrent. Public awareness should be increased in order to optimise the direct and consequential effects of patron banning policy.

“…Bans do remove individuals from a specific place, can provide an immediate response to a behavioural issue within a given location, and may prevent a recurrence if the ban is enforced in a proactive and effective manner. However, the specific effects on subsequent patron behaviours are less clear, as are the general deterrent effects of banning (Curtis et al, 2018(Curtis et al, , 2022. Despite the proliferation of patron banning mechanisms across Australian jurisdictions, there has been very little proactive monitoring of their use, effect or effectiveness.…”

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

How long should a patron ban be: an examination of police-imposed barring notice records in Western Australia

Miller

Taylor

et al. 2023

PIJPSM

Self Cite

PurposePatron banning is widely used in response to disorderly behaviours in/around licensed venues, but there has been limited analysis of specific policies. This paper explores key findings in relation to police-imposed barring notices in Western Australia (WA).Design/methodology/approachWA Police provided de-identified data for 4,023 barring notices imposed between 2011 and 2020 and offender records for each recipient, to 30 June 2020. The data were analysed to identify patterns and trends in relation to ban length, recipient type and associated offending.FindingsMean ban lengths increased across the period (from 4.46 months in 2015 to 6.82 months in 2019). Longer initial bans (of 6–12 months) were associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent ban – with each additional month associated with an 11.4% increase in the likelihood of not receiving a second ban. Across the dataset, some notable anomalies were identified for individuals categorised as prolific offenders.Originality/valueResearch examining the effects of patron banning is limited but, to date, has generally not supported presumptions of improved patron behaviour. WA adopts an individualised approach to barring notice lengths, following review of the incident and offender. The findings suggest that, while barring policy is appropriate, a number of operational refinements can help WA Police to optimise their behavioural effect/s.