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

Crime Prevention and Community Safety https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-022-00152-2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Patron banning policy and practice in Queensland, Australia: key informant perspectives Clare Farmer1 · Peter Miller2,3,4 · Narelle Robertson2 · Jason Ferris5 · Nicholas Taylor2 · Kerri Coomber2 · Ashlee Curtis2 · Dominique d’Andrade2,6 Accepted: 10 June 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 Abstract 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 policeimposed 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. Keywords Patron banning · ID scanners · Alcohol · Police · Night-time economy * Clare Farmer 1 School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Geelong, Australia 2 School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia 3 National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia 4 Menzies Research Institute, Darwin, Australia 5 Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 6 School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Vol.:(0123456789) C. Farmer et al. Introduction Governments across Australia and internationally have responded to concerns about alcohol-fuelled disorderly behaviours by implementing a variety of legislative reforms, regulations, and operational procedures to address violence and risky drinking practices (Fleming 2008; Miller et al. 2012, 2013, 2016a, b; Taylor et al. 2018). Patron banning is one provision that has steadily expanded, particularly across Australian jurisdictions (Farmer et al. 2018; Farmer and Clifford 2020). Banning provisions range from the discretionary facility for licensees to exclude individuals from their venues, to on-the-spot police-imposed venue or public area bans, and court-imposed exclusion orders. Venue specific bans apply to licensed premises and can be imposed by licensees or other authorised persons for a range of generally low-level anti-social behaviours, sometimes for extensive periods, but with limited options for review. Police and court-imposed bans are typically a response to alcohol-related violence or disorder. They can also be imposed in anticipation of (and to prevent) a perceived intended disorderly act. These bans generally apply to specific locations and/or pre-defined geographical areas within town centres or entertainment precincts, which are usually determined by relevant liquor regulatory bodies. Police and court-imposed banning powers include legislated imposition, enforcement and breach mechanisms. Despite their formal nature and the potential consequences of a breach, in most jurisdictions there is no provision for independent or judicial appeal against a police decision to ban (Farmer 2019a, b). The specifics of banning provisions differ across Australian states and territories, but their underpinning rationale is generally consistent (Farmer and Clifford 2020). The banning of patrons, from licensed premises and/or wider public areas (such as nightlife entertainment precincts), is generally presumed to change the behaviours of recipients and deter non-recipients from engaging in disorderly behaviour (Curtis et al. 2018), increase/ensure public safety, and prevent crime. Patron bans often form part of a suite of provisions implemented to address alcohol-related disorderly behaviours, and their effectiveness can be limited by the difficulty of discerning the effects of specific measures. Across Australia, banning provisions have typically been implemented without ongoing scrutiny of their use or effects (Farmer et al. 2018, 2021). Police officers are primarily responsible for the ‘on-the-ground’ enforcement of banning provisions but this relies on the support of licensees, venue managers, and their security personnel—to identify banned patrons and, where appropriate, to alert police to potential breaches of bans. Typically, such ‘third-party policing’ (Mazerolle and Ransley 2002) of patron bans requires access to photographs and other personal details in order to identify banned patrons. In recent years, technological solutions have started to help with enforcement. Networked closed-circuit television (CCTV) and identification (ID) scanners support more proactive and immediate monitoring of individuals attempting to enter or otherwise be present within a licensed venue (de Andrade 2021; Miller et al. 2016a, b; Palmer et al. 2010). ID scanners can detect patrons who have been banned by matching the Patron banning policy and practice in Queensland, Australia:… scanned patron ID documents (such as a driver’s licence or passport) against a database of banned patrons—either specific to the venue or, where available, networked across multiple venues (Miller et al. 2019). For venues operating without ID scanners, the identification of banned patrons is much more unreliable and largely depends upon key personnel knowing and recognising people who have been banned. ID scanners can improve the efficiency and accuracy of identification and also enable venues to understand from where a patron may have been banned and why. For example, while a police-imposed ban will be enforced, a venue may decide to allow entry to a patron who has been banned by a venue other than their own. In 2016, the Queensland Government implemented a broad-based multifaceted policy, Tackling Alcohol-Fuelled Violence (TAFV) (Queensland Government 2015). Comparable measures had already been introduced in other jurisdictions. For example, Victoria’s Alcohol Action Plan: 2008–2013 (Department of Justice 2008) incorporated a suite of initiatives which included tougher licensing rules, a significant increase in the level of nightlife policing and the introduction of police-imposed banning notices. In February 2014, New South Wales (NSW) passed a swathe of measures (under the Liquor Amendment Act 2014) which included a 1.30 a.m. lockout for licensed venues in two Sydney entertainment precincts, a 3.00 a.m. cessation for the service of alcohol and a freez (...truncated)