The proliferation of patron banning in Australia; implications for the control of alcohol-related disorder in the night-time economy

C. Farmer1*, A. Curtis2, B. Guadagno3, P. Miller4

1 Dr Clare Farmer, School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Deakin University
2 Ashlee Curtis, School of Psychology, Deakin University
3 Dr Belinda Guadagno, School of Psychology, Deakin University
4 Professor Peter Miller, School of Psychology, Deakin University

*corresponding author: clare.farmer@deakin.edu.au

Concern about alcohol-related violence and disorder in Australian entertainment precincts has proliferated over the last decade, and has prompted a range of responses across every jurisdiction. Measures have included lockouts, increases in on-the-spot fines, tougher licensing regulation, and a steady expansion of discretionary police powers. The ability to ban troublesome individuals, from specific venues and/or wider public areas, has been introduced and extended in a range of contexts. The increasing remit of banning powers builds upon an embedded assumption that exclusion is necessary and ‘works’ as both an individual and collective deterrent. However, unlike other mechanisms which target a reduction in problems associated with alcohol-related disorder in the night-time economy, there has been only limited analysis of the implementation and use of banning powers. Banning provisions have steadily increased but with very little specific examination of their nature, extent or use, or of the effect of bans upon both individual recipients and alcohol-related disorder in general.

This paper draws together relevant patron and area banning legislation across Australia to provide an inventory of banning provisions. An examination of key differences and similarities, and consideration of how the various provisions are monitored highlights a lack clarity regarding the how banning powers are being developed and why. Banning, as a response to alcohol-related disorder, continues to be extended, but in a seemingly ad hoc and inconsistent manner. The actual effect of the various banning provisions is largely assumed, and subject to very limited scrutiny.

Biography

Dr Clare Farmer lectures in Criminology at Deakin University. Her research interests include youth crime, human rights and police discretionary powers, as well as sentencing practices. She served as a Magistrate in England prior to emigrating to Australia.

The proliferation of patron banning in Australia; implications for the control of alcohol-related disorder in the night-time economy

C. Farmer1*, A. Curtis2, B. Guadagno3, P. Miller4

1 Dr Clare Farmer, School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Deakin University
2 Ashlee Curtis, School of Psychology, Deakin University
3 Dr Belinda Guadagno, School of Psychology, Deakin University
4 Professor Peter Miller, School of Psychology, Deakin University

*corresponding author: clare.farmer@deakin.edu.au

Concern about alcohol-related violence and disorder in Australian entertainment precincts has proliferated over the last decade, and has prompted a range of responses across every jurisdiction. Measures have included lockouts, increases in on-the-spot fines, tougher licensing regulation, and a steady expansion of discretionary police powers. The ability to ban troublesome individuals, from specific venues and/or wider public areas, has been introduced and extended in a range of contexts. The increasing remit of banning powers builds upon an embedded assumption that exclusion is necessary and ‘works’ as both an individual and collective deterrent. However, unlike other mechanisms which target a reduction in problems associated with alcohol-related disorder in the night-time economy, there has been only limited analysis of the implementation and use of banning powers. Banning provisions have steadily increased but with very little specific examination of their nature, extent or use, or of the effect of bans upon both individual recipients and alcohol-related disorder in general.

This paper draws together relevant patron and area banning legislation across Australia to provide an inventory of banning provisions. An examination of key differences and similarities, and consideration of how the various provisions are monitored highlights a lack clarity regarding the how banning powers are being developed and why. Banning, as a response to alcohol-related disorder, continues to be extended, but in a seemingly ad hoc and inconsistent manner. The actual effect of the various banning provisions is largely assumed, and subject to very limited scrutiny.

Biography

Dr Clare Farmer lectures in Criminology at Deakin University. Her research interests include youth crime, human rights and police discretionary powers, as well as sentencing practices. She served as a Magistrate in England prior to emigrating to Australia.

Managing intoxicated offenders in the field and in the watch-house

Susan Goldsmid1*, Georgina Fuller1 & Rick Brown1

1 Australian Institute of Criminology

*corresponding author: susan.goldsmid@aic.gov.au

A considerable proportion of a police officer’s time involves interactions with persons who are intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. The risks associated with intoxication are not limited to the affected individual as their behaviour may also present risks to the police and other frontline service personnel, or to the public. The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) was funded by the National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund to develop a best practice framework to help guide the development of police policies and practices in identifying, responding to and managing intoxication and withdrawal. A mixed-methods methodology was implemented. This included a literature review, case study analysis using data from the National Deaths in Custody Program, a comparative review of police policies and guidelines, quantitative analysis of substance use profiles of Australian police detainees and consultations with police members. The strategies that have been adopted by police services in four jurisdictions across Australia to manage intoxication-based risks were explored. The resulting C.A.L.M framework comprises four, non-sequential phases (Control, Assess, Liaise and Manage). Identification of risks to the police, the offender and the public in each phase and considerations related to intoxication and withdrawal will also be discussed. The C.A.L.M framework is not intended to replace existing police procedures, but rather to provide an evidence-based foundation that promotes consistency and knowledge sharing across Australian police jurisdictions to aid the police in the management of intoxicated offenders.

Biography

Dr Susan Goldsmid is a Principal Research Analyst with the AIC. She has previously had an established career as a sworn member within the Australian Federal Police, holding various roles in operational, intelligence and training areas. Susan’s areas of specialisation include police practice and futures work. She is currently undertaking research examining Victoria Police operational safety principles, the future of police investigation capabilities, and the future nature of the Australian illicit drug market.

Managing intoxicated offenders in the field and in the watch-house

Susan Goldsmid1*, Georgina Fuller1 & Rick Brown1

1 Australian Institute of Criminology

*corresponding author: susan.goldsmid@aic.gov.au

A considerable proportion of a police officer’s time involves interactions with persons who are intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. The risks associated with intoxication are not limited to the affected individual as their behaviour may also present risks to the police and other frontline service personnel, or to the public. The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) was funded by the National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund to develop a best practice framework to help guide the development of police policies and practices in identifying, responding to and managing intoxication and withdrawal. A mixed-methods methodology was implemented. This included a literature review, case study analysis using data from the National Deaths in Custody Program, a comparative review of police policies and guidelines, quantitative analysis of substance use profiles of Australian police detainees and consultations with police members. The strategies that have been adopted by police services in four jurisdictions across Australia to manage intoxication-based risks were explored. The resulting C.A.L.M framework comprises four, non-sequential phases (Control, Assess, Liaise and Manage). Identification of risks to the police, the offender and the public in each phase and considerations related to intoxication and withdrawal will also be discussed. The C.A.L.M framework is not intended to replace existing police procedures, but rather to provide an evidence-based foundation that promotes consistency and knowledge sharing across Australian police jurisdictions to aid the police in the management of intoxicated offenders.

Biography

Dr Susan Goldsmid is a Principal Research Analyst with the AIC. She has previously had an established career as a sworn member within the Australian Federal Police, holding various roles in operational, intelligence and training areas. Susan’s areas of specialisation include police practice and futures work. She is currently undertaking research examining Victoria Police operational safety principles, the future of police investigation capabilities, and the future nature of the Australian illicit drug market.

Can police deter drug use and supply at music festivals? An assessment of the deterrent effects of Australian street-level drug law enforcement

C. Hughes1*, V. Moxham-Hall1, A. Ritter1, R. MacCoun2, D. Weatherburn3

1 NDARC, UNSW Australia
2 Stanford Law School
3 NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

*corresponding author: caitlin.hughes@unsw.edu.au

Introduction

In efforts to prevent or deter illicit drug offending Australian street-level drug law enforcement deploy an increasing array of strategies (including policing with drug detection dogs, saturation policing and riot policing). Limited evidence of deterrence exists: albeit there are concerns some ‘deterrent’ strategies may have adverse public health impacts. This study assessed the likely impacts of four Australian policing strategies on the incidence and severity of drug use and selling at a common setting: outdoor music festivals.

Methods

A national online survey was constructed with five hypothetical or experimental vignettes involving four different policing strategies and a counter-factual (no police presence). The survey was administered to 2115 people who regularly attend festivals in late 2015. Participants were block-randomised to receive two vignettes and asked under each whether they would use, possess, purchase, give or sell illicit drugs.

Results

Police presence led to a small reduction in engagement in drug offending at music festivals: particularly willingness to carry drugs into festival grounds. However, it had minimal or counterproductive impacts on the levels of purchasing or supply. Moreover, offending impacts varied significantly by policing strategy and patron’s frequency of prior policing encounters.

Discussion

The findings suggest that street-level policing may deter some forms of drug offending, but that the major deterrent impacts will be on use and possession: not purchasing or supply. It further suggests that some popular strategies (and broader normalisation of policing at known drug use settings) may carry significant trade-offs for drug-related crime control and public health.

Biography

Dr Caitlin Hughes is a criminologist and Senior Research Fellow at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Australia, where she works as part of the Drug Policy Modelling Program (DPMP). Her research focuses on 1) evaluating and informing drug laws; 2) evaluating and informing criminal justice policies (including alternatives to arrest); 3) monitoring trends in drug trafficking and drug markets; and 4) researching the policy processes by which drug policy is informed and made. She is currently leading a two year ARC Discovery Project examining deterrent effects of Australian street-level drug law enforcement strategies.

Can police deter drug use and supply at music festivals? An assessment of the deterrent effects of Australian street-level drug law enforcement

C. Hughes1*, V. Moxham-Hall1, A. Ritter1, R. MacCoun2, D. Weatherburn3

1 NDARC, UNSW Australia
2 Stanford Law School
3 NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

*corresponding author: caitlin.hughes@unsw.edu.au

Introduction

In efforts to prevent or deter illicit drug offending Australian street-level drug law enforcement deploy an increasing array of strategies (including policing with drug detection dogs, saturation policing and riot policing). Limited evidence of deterrence exists: albeit there are concerns some ‘deterrent’ strategies may have adverse public health impacts. This study assessed the likely impacts of four Australian policing strategies on the incidence and severity of drug use and selling at a common setting: outdoor music festivals.

Methods

A national online survey was constructed with five hypothetical or experimental vignettes involving four different policing strategies and a counter-factual (no police presence). The survey was administered to 2115 people who regularly attend festivals in late 2015. Participants were block-randomised to receive two vignettes and asked under each whether they would use, possess, purchase, give or sell illicit drugs.

Results

Police presence led to a small reduction in engagement in drug offending at music festivals: particularly willingness to carry drugs into festival grounds. However, it had minimal or counterproductive impacts on the levels of purchasing or supply. Moreover, offending impacts varied significantly by policing strategy and patron’s frequency of prior policing encounters.

Discussion

The findings suggest that street-level policing may deter some forms of drug offending, but that the major deterrent impacts will be on use and possession: not purchasing or supply. It further suggests that some popular strategies (and broader normalisation of policing at known drug use settings) may carry significant trade-offs for drug-related crime control and public health.

Biography

Dr Caitlin Hughes is a criminologist and Senior Research Fellow at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Australia, where she works as part of the Drug Policy Modelling Program (DPMP). Her research focuses on 1) evaluating and informing drug laws; 2) evaluating and informing criminal justice policies (including alternatives to arrest); 3) monitoring trends in drug trafficking and drug markets; and 4) researching the policy processes by which drug policy is informed and made. She is currently leading a two year ARC Discovery Project examining deterrent effects of Australian street-level drug law enforcement strategies.

ABOUT ANZSOC

The society is devoted to promoting criminological study, research and practice in the region and bringing together persons engaged in all aspects of the field. The membership of the society reflects the diversity of persons involved in the field, including practitioners, academics, policy makers and students.

Conference Managers

Please contact the team at Conference Design with any questions regarding the conference.
© 2018 Conference Design Pty Ltd