Do patron bans affect subsequent behaviour? An examination of pre- and post-ban offending for barring notice and prohibition order recipients in Western Australia
Abstract
Introduction
To explore whether receipt of either of two patron banning provisions currently used in Western Australia—in response to alcohol-related disorderly and anti-social behaviour—is associated with changes to subsequent offending.
Method
Western Australia Police de-identified the offender records and associated data for 3440 individuals who had received one or more police-imposed barring notice/s between 2011 and 2020, and 319 individuals who had received one or more prohibition orders between 2013 and 2020. The number of offences recorded for each recipient before and after the first notice/order were examined to understand the potential effect of both provisions upon subsequent offending.
Results
The low number of repeat barring notices (5% of the total) and prohibition orders (1% of the total) points to their general success. Analysis of offending records before and after receipt/expiry of either provision indicates that both have a generally positive effect on subsequent behaviours. For all barring notice recipients, 52% recorded no further offences and for all prohibition order recipients, 58% recorded no further offences. There was a less positive effect for the sub-set of multiple ban recipients and prolific offenders.
Discussion and Conclusions
Barring notices and prohibition orders appear to have a generally positive effect on subsequent behaviours for the majority of recipients. More targeted interventions are recommended for repeat offenders, for whom patron banning provisions have a more limited effect.
1 INTRODUCTION
Governments both within 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. Many of these interventions focus on nightlife entertainment districts, which are a hot-spot for crime and disorderly behaviour [1]. Most target individuals and respond to individual incidents of violence and disorder, rather than addressing the underlying conditions which may give rise to these behaviours [2]. Across Australian jurisdictions, a key feature of responses to issues of alcohol-related disorder in entertainment districts has been the introduction of one or more methods of patron banning. Banning provisions range from the discretionary facility for licensees to exclude individuals from their venues, through multi-venue bans under the auspices of local Liquor Accords, to on-the-spot police-imposed venue or public area bans, and court-imposed exclusion orders. Since 2010, the use of banning provisions has continued to expand both legislatively and operationally [3, 4], although concern has been expressed about a lack of scrutiny of patron banning as a mechanism to address alcohol-related disorderly behaviours [5-15]. Despite limited evidence-based analysis of their effects and effectiveness, all Australian jurisdictions have now introduced one or more forms of patron banning [3].
The use of exclusion from public areas in response to anti-social behaviours has also been examined in other countries, such as England and Wales [16-18], the USA [19], Germany [20], Hungary [21], Denmark [22] and Canada [23, 24]. Persak [25] and Persak and Ronco [26] documented the spatial regulation of disorder in a number of European jurisdictions. The literature of socio-spatial criminology is extensive and space precludes a more detailed discussion. However, a common feature is a lack of evaluation of the effects of banning provisions on individual behaviours. There is very little ongoing scrutiny of the use of patron bans and, to date, no empirical evidence of their effectiveness with respect to subsequent recipient behaviour [11, 14].
Sogaard [11] examined the effects of 2-year police-imposed banning orders used in the city of Aalborg in Denmark. The study sample was limited, but found that social pressures and peer expectations contribute to banning orders exacerbating rather than reducing risky behaviours. In Australia, Taylor et al. [15] examined the effectiveness of police-issued 10-day bans applied across Queensland's three largest night-time entertainment precincts (Brisbane CBD, Fortitude Valley and Surfers Paradise CBD). The research analysed banning notices imposed on particular weekends and compared the number of specific offences recorded on subsequent weekends. The study focused on immediate rather than ongoing effects, but found no significant relationship between the utilisation of bans and the number of serious assaults, common assaults or good order offences over the following weekend.
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. Codification has increasingly formalised and expanded venue banning powers and in some jurisdictions, for example, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, venue bans cover contiguous public areas and are subject to criminal breach proceedings. Police and court-imposed bans are typically a response to alcohol-related violence or disorder. They can also be imposed on-the-spot in anticipation of (and to prevent) a perceived intended disorderly act and/or in addition to another criminal disposal. 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 [8].
The specifics of banning provisions differ across Australian states and territories [3, 4] but their underpinning rationale is generally consistent. 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 disorderly behaviour [5, 6] and, as a result, increase/ensure public safety and prevent crime [3]. The demonstrable effects of banning are limited and provisions have typically been implemented without ongoing scrutiny of their use or effects [2, 3, 11, 13]. Bans can provide an immediate response to a behavioural issue within a given location and may prevent a recurrence. However, the specific effects of bans on patron behaviours are currently unclear, and their influence on recipient behaviour is dependent upon proactive and effective enforcement [22]. In a study of the offending records of banned patrons from a regional city in Victoria, Australia, Curtis et al. [6] examined the median number of charges before and after receiving a ban, and found that they were not significantly different. However, when analysing short-term effects (2 years before and after receiving a ban), Curtis et al. found a significant increase in anti-social offending after receiving a ban compared to before. The study suggests that police-imposed bans in Victoria do not appear to deter recipients from offending or change already established patterns of anti-social behaviours.
The focus of this paper is Western Australia (WA), where licensee bans, police-imposed barring notices, and prohibition orders are used to primarily target alcohol-related violence and disorderly behaviours. Each is presumed to prevent crime, change the behaviours of recipients, and increase public safety by: providing a tangible consequence for recipients by excluding them from licensed premises; deterring the recipient from further behaviours which may lead to another ban; deterring the wider community from engaging in behaviours which may lead to a ban. This paper draws from research which examined the specific effects on subsequent offending of recipients of police-imposed barring notices and prohibition orders.
1.1 Police-imposed barring notices
Under section 115AA of the WA Liquor Control Act 1988 the Commissioner of Police, or a police officer above the rank of Inspector, is empowered to approve the exclusion of an individual from a specified licensed venue, or a class of licensed venues, if there is reasonable belief that the recipient has ‘(a) been violent or disorderly; or (b) engaged in indecent behaviour; or (c) contravened a provision of any written law’. The original legislation, passed in 2010, required the alleged behaviour to have occurred within a licensed venue. A 2018 amendment expanded the permissible imposition of barring notices to include problematic behaviours occurring in the vicinity of licensed premises (Liquor Control Act 1988, s115AA(2))—to include persons misbehaving in queues, on footpaths, in car parks close to licensed premises. There is no specific distance which denotes the ‘vicinity’ of a licensed venue.
Unlike other Australian jurisdictions, barring notices in WA are not imposed on-the-spot. A determination is made by the centralised liquor enforcement unit (LEU), following consideration of evidence such as CCTV and witness statements. While the imposition of a barring notice may be associated with one or more offences, no specific offence is required to be proven and none may be recorded. The barring notice can be imposed for any period up to 12 months. They take effect from the day on which they are served, but the barring period starts from the date of the problematic incident. The penalty for breaching a barring notice is a fine of up to $10,000 (Liquor Control Act 1988, s.115AA).
1.2 Prohibition orders
Prohibition orders are intended for more serious anti-social, disorderly and violent behaviours and/or target individuals who may be associated with serious/organised crime. They were introduced following the passage of the Liquor and Gaming Legislation Amendment Act 2006, which added section 152 to the WA Liquor Control Act 1988. A key purpose of the Act is to minimise harms associated with the consumption of alcohol. Prohibition orders facilitate this by empowering the Commissioner of Police to seek approval from the Director of Liquor Licensing to prohibit an individual from ‘… entering specified licensed premises, licensed premises of a specified class or any licensed premises’ (Liquor Control Act 1988, s.152B) in the state of WA. The scope of incidents which meet the criteria for an application is wider than that for a barring notice. Prohibition orders can be issued to people who are involved in more serious alcohol-related anti-social behaviour, or who have been convicted of relevant offences and for whom exclusion from licensed venues is regarded as necessary. There is no requirement for the behaviours or offences to have occurred in or around licensed premises. Prohibition orders are increasingly being considered in family violence situations where the consumption of liquor contributes to serious and persistent offending.* A prohibition order can be imposed for up to 5 years for an adult and 2 years for a juvenile (Liquor Control Act 1988, s.152F). An alleged breach or failure to comply with an order can be dealt with by issuing a liquor infringement or by court summons, and lead to a fine of up to $10,000 (s.152L).
2 METHODS
The wider study from which this paper is drawn was initiated by WA Police, in collaboration with Deakin University, to examine the effect/s and effectiveness of barring notices and prohibition orders. Ethical approval was obtained from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee in October 2018 (reference: 2018-297). Approval was also received from the WA Police Research Governance Unit as part of the overall project tender and initiation processes.
- Barring notices: de-identified records for all notices imposed between January 2011 and 30 June 2020. The dataset comprised 5020 barring notices and the analysis focused on the 4023 barring notices that were recorded as being served.
- Prohibition orders: de-identified records for all orders imposed between late 2013 and 30 June 2020. The dataset comprised 411 prohibition orders and the analysis focused on the 345 that were recorded as being granted.
- De-identified offender records for each barring notice and prohibition order recipient, from January 2008 to 30 June 2020.
Note: The barring notices and prohibition orders that were not served/granted were excluded from the analysis as they are unlikely to have any impact on the intended recipients. WA Police were not able to confirm why notices or orders were not served/granted and it is expected that reasons varied between individuals.
The first two datasets were examined to identify key information regarding each cohort, including: (i) ‘who’ received the notice/order: recipient age and sex†; (ii) the nature of the notice/order: where (specific location), when (date, day, time), for how long; (iii) recorded reasons for the imposition of barring notices‡; (iv) the identification of multiple order recipients: the number of repeat recipients, who, when, where, why etc. The third dataset was examined in relation to the first two, to identify: (i) the offending record for each notice/order recipient (de-identified and linked to the appropriate order(s)); (ii) the number of offences recorded for each recipient before and after the first notice/order (in total and covering a 2-year period before/after the receipt of the first notice/order); and (iii) the potential recidivism effect of notices/orders for recipients: pre-ban offences were mapped against post-ban offences.
This paper reports the findings of an examination of the de-identified offending records of barring notice and prohibition order recipients, which analysed the number of recorded offences before and after the imposition or expiration of each provision. The first barring notice or prohibition order an individual received was paired with every offence with which they had been charged: the number of offences that occurred before the first barring notice/prohibition order was then compared with offences recorded after the barring notice/prohibition order. Offences that occurred on the same date on which a barring notice or prohibition order commenced were counted as offences occurring before the notice/order, as it was reasonable to presume no effect from the notice/order. The analysis focused on the number of offences recorded, rather than their nature or severity.
- individuals who received only one barring notice or prohibition order;
- individuals who received multiple barring notices or prohibition orders;
- individuals categorised as ‘prolific’ offenders.
There is no fixed definition of a prolific offender within the literature and WA Police do not apply a formal definition. The analysis here drew from the UK Ministry of Justice [27] regarding their definition of prolific offenders in England/Wales: adult (21+ years): 16 or more recorded offences/sanctions; young adult (18–20 years): eight or more recorded offences/sanctions; juvenile (10–17 years): four or more recorded offences/sanctions since the age of 10 (there were no offenders in this category).
For each cohort, three levels of analysis were conducted. The first examined the total offending record for each recipient. As the record for some offenders may cover a longer time period before or after they received their barring notice/prohibition order, the second level of analysis limited the period examined to 2 years before and after the initial barring notice and/or prohibition order. To account for the duration of each barring notice/prohibition order (and avoid any potential skewing of the analysis towards longer bans), the third level of analysis compared offending records for the 2 years prior to a ban with offences recorded within 2 years after the ban expired. Offenders who did not have offences recorded within 2 years of the ban either being imposed or expiring were not included in these analyses, but they were included within the overall analysis. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for all analyses to compare offending frequency before and after the barring notice/prohibition order. This specific test allows for comparisons where individuals in both groups are the same (pre/post), while also accounting for the potentially skewed nature of the data. A negative Z indicates that subsequent offending numbers were lower.
This analysis draws from the approach taken by Curtis et al. [6], who examined the offending records of people who received bans in a city in Victoria, Australia, between 2010 and 2017, and explored whether the number of anti-social offences reduced after the imposition of a police-imposed ban.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Barring notices and prohibition orders: Key data
Table 1 summarises the number of barring notices served and prohibition orders granted each year, to show the distribution across the period examined.
| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020a | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNs served | 207 | 237 | 371 | 535 | 737 | 506 | 465 | 381 | 419 | 165 | 4023 |
| POs grantedb | 1 | 22 | 26 | 57 | 44 | 150 | 37 | 8 | 345 |
- Abbreviations: BN, barring notice; PO, prohibition order.
- a To 30 June 2020 only.
- b Data available from 2013.
3.2 Barring notices: Multiple recipients
Of the 4023 served barring notices, 208 (5%) were repeat notices: served on an individual who had already received one or more prior barring notice/s. These 208 notices were served to 183 individuals of whom 161 served a total of two barring notices, 19 served a total of three notices, and 3 served a total of four notices.
3.3 Prohibition orders: Multiple recipients
Of the 411 prohibition orders issued between 2013 and 2020, five individuals received multiple orders. Limited additional analysis is possible, due to the absence of available information.
3.4 Barring notice recipients: Analysis of offending records
A total of 3440 unique individuals who had received one or more barring notice/s and for whom WA Police had a record of offences were identified. A further 375 individuals were excluded from the analysis as no recorded offences were located within the data provided by WA Police. Across all barring notice recipients with recorded offences, 51.69% recorded no further offences after receiving their notice and 54.47% recorded no offences within 2 years of their notice.
Various cohorts were examined to determine whether the number of subsequent offences (of any type) was significantly lower, higher or not significant after receipt of the first notice. To account for the duration of each barring notice, the offending records for each cohort were also compared for the 2 years prior to a ban with offences recorded within 2 years after the ban expired. Table 2 summarises the findings for each cohort and notes the results of the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Where the analysis is affected by small cohort numbers and/or high individual offence numbers within a cohort, this is acknowledged.
| Cohort | Analysis | Number (n=) | Z value | Significantly lower (p < 0.001) | Significantly higher (p < 0.001) | Change not significant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All BN recipients | Whole period | 3440 | −23.39 | × | ||
| Single BN recipients | Whole period | 3262 | −25.43 | × | ||
| Multiple BN recipients | Whole period | 178 | 3.67 | × | ||
| BN: all prolific offenders | Whole period | 566 | −12.38 | × | ||
| BN: prolific offenders: 18–20 | Whole period | 59 | −0.02 | × | ||
| BN: prolific offenders: 21+ | Whole period | 507 | −12.82 | × | ||
| BN: non-prolific offenders | Whole period | 2874 | −19.83 | × | ||
| All BN recipients | 2 years after first BN issued | 2561 | −18.49 | × | ||
| Single BN recipients | 2 years after first BN issued | 2400 | −20.34 | × | ||
| Multiple BN recipients | 2 years after first BN issued | 161 | 3.16 | × | ||
| BN: all prolific offenders | 2 years after first BN issued | 409 | −5.56 | × | ||
| BN: prolific offenders: 18–20 | 2 years after first BN issued | 45 | −2.1 | × | ||
| BN: prolific offenders: 21+ | 2 years after first BN issued | 364 | −5.18 | × | ||
| BN: non-prolific offenders | 2 years after first BN issued | 2152 | −18.89 | × | ||
| All BN recipientsa | 2 years after first BN expired | 2394 | 4.53 | × | ||
| Single BN recipients | 2 years after first BN expired | 2232 | 1.24 | × | ||
| Multiple BN recipients | 2 years after first BN expired | 161 | 9.25 | × | ||
| BN: all prolific offenders | 2 years after first BN expired | 377 | 7.8 | × | ||
| BN: prolific offenders: 18–20 | 2 years after first BN expired | 335 | 7.5 | × | ||
| BN: prolific offenders: 21+ | 2 years after first BN expired | 42 | 2.06 | × | ||
| BN: non-prolific offenders | 2 years after first BN expired | 2017 | −0.05 | × |
- a Thirty-three recipients had no expiry date listed on their barring notice record, and were excluded from the analysis.
- Single barring notice recipients: total offences recorded: 54.38% recorded no further offences.
- Single barring notice recipients: offences recorded within 2 years of first barring notice: 57.38% recorded no further offences.
- Non-prolific offenders: total offences recorded: 57.06% recorded no further offences.
- Non-prolific offenders: offences recorded within 2 years of first barring notice: 61.29% recorded no further offences.
For the whole cohort of barring notice recipients (n = 3440), the number of offences recorded after receipt of the first notice was 26% lower than the total number recorded before. For the cohort of single barring notice recipients (n = 3262) the number of offences recorded after receipt of the first notice was 33% lower than the total number recorded before. For the cohort of multiple barring notice recipients (n = 178) the number of offences recorded after receipt of the first notice was 42% higher than the number recorded before.
For the analyses examining the 2 years after the imposition of a barring notice, five of the seven cohorts recorded a significantly lower number of offences. However, for the analyses examining the 2 years after the expiration of a barring notice, four of the seven cohorts recorded a significantly higher number of offences. The cohort of multiple barring notice recipients (n = 161) recorded significantly higher numbers of offences within both analyses.
3.5 Prohibition order recipients: Analysis of offending records
Three hundred and nineteen individuals who had received one or more prohibition orders and for whom WA Police had a record of offences were identified. A further 21 individuals without recorded offences were identified and were excluded from this part of the analysis. Across all prohibition order recipients, 57.99% recorded no further offences after receiving their order, 53.13% recorded no offences within 2 years of their order.
Various cohorts were examined to determine whether the number of subsequent offences (of any type) was significantly lower, higher or not significant after receipt of the first order. To account for the duration of each prohibition order, the offending records for each cohort were also compared for the 2 years prior to an order with offences recorded within 2 years after the order expired. The broad pattern is similar, with the additional insignificant results attributed to a power issue. Table 3 summarises the findings for each cohort and notes the results of the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Where the analysis is affected by small cohort numbers and/or high individual offence numbers within a cohort, this is acknowledged.
| Cohort | Analysis | Number (n=) | Z value | Significantly lower (p < 0.001) | Significantly higher (p < 0.001) | Change not significant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All PO recipients | Whole period | 319 | −12.73 | × | ||
| Single PO recipients | Whole period | 314 | −12.97 | × | ||
| Multiple PO recipients | Whole period | 5 | 3.71 | × | ||
| PO: All prolific offenders | Whole period | 93 | −7.08 | × | ||
| PO: Prolific offenders: 18–20 | Whole period | 10 | −2.65 | × | ||
| PO: Prolific offenders: 21+ | Whole period | 83 | −6.64 | × | ||
| PO: Non-prolific offenders | Whole period | 226 | −10.65 | × | ||
| All PO recipients | 2 years after first PO issued | 128 | −6.39 | × | ||
| Single PO recipients | 2 years after first PO issued | 126 | −6.87 | × | ||
| Single PO recipients | 2 years after first PO issued | 126 | −6.87 | × | ||
| PO: All prolific offenders | 2 years after first PO issued | 35 | −2.83 | × | ||
| PO: Prolific offenders: 18–20 | 2 years after first PO issued | 2 | Dataset too small | × Dataset too small |
||
| PO: Prolific offenders: 21+ | 2 years after first PO issued | 33 | −2.73 | × | ||
| PO: Non-prolific offenders | 2 years after first PO issued | 93 | −5.78 | × | ||
| All PO recipients | 2 years after first PO expired | 41 | −4.01 | × | ||
| Single PO recipients | 2 years after first PO expired | 40 | −4.43 | × | ||
| Multiple PO recipients | 2 years after first PO expired | 1 | Dataset too small | × Dataset too small |
||
| PO: All prolific offenders | 2 years after first PO expired | 6 | −0.94 | × | ||
| PO: Prolific offenders: 18–20 | 2 years after first PO expired | 5 | −0.67 | × | ||
| PO: Prolific offenders: 21+ | 2 years after first PO expired | 1 | Dataset too small | × Dataset too small |
||
| PO: Non-prolific offenders | 2 years after first PO expired | 35 | −3.85 | × |
- Single prohibition order recipients: total offences recorded: 58.28% recorded no further offences.
- Single prohibition order recipients: offences recorded within 2 years of first prohibition order: 53.97% recorded no further offences.
- Non-prolific offenders: total offences recorded: 65.93% recorded no further offences.
- Non-prolific offenders: offences recorded within 2 years of first prohibition order: 67.74% recorded no further offences.
For the whole cohort of prohibition order recipients (n = 319), the number of offences recorded after receipt of the first order was 59% lower than the total number recorded before. For the cohort of single prohibition order recipients (n = 314) the number of offences recorded after receipt of the first order was 67% lower than the total number recorded before.
For the analyses examining the 2 years after the imposition and expiration of a barring notice, the findings are similar—with no notable differences identified.
4 DISCUSSION
Banning people who engage in anti-social behaviour from areas in and around licensed venues is a popular mechanism for managing patron behaviour. Across Australian jurisdictions, powers to ban have steadily expanded [3, 4]. Despite the popularity of banning as a way to address problematic behaviours, and an increase in banning focused research [3, 6, 15, 22], there is still limited literature exploring the specific impact of patron banning on the individual or the wider community. The study from which this paper is drawn examined the effect and effectiveness of two patron banning provisions in WA: police-imposed barring notices and prohibition orders.
The low number of repeat barring notices and prohibition orders points to their general success: 5% of the 4023 barring notices and 1% of the 345 prohibition orders were repeat notices/orders. The analysis of offending records before and after receipt of either provision indicates that both appear to have a generally positive effect on subsequent behaviours. Most recipients recorded a significantly lower number of offences after receipt of their ban (p < 0.001). The key findings differ from the analysis of the offending records of people who received bans in a city in Victoria, Australia, between 2010 and 2017 [6]. That study found that Victoria's police-imposed bans did not appear to deter recipients from repeat offending or change already established patterns of anti-social behaviours. By contrast, in WA, across all barring notice recipients, 52% recorded no further offences after receiving their notice. For prohibition order recipients, 58% recorded no further offences after receiving their order. Only multiple barring notice recipients recorded a significantly higher number of subsequent offences, overall and within 2 years of the first notice (p < 0.001). For prolific offenders, aged 18–20 years, the barring notice did not significantly change the amount of offending. It is not possible to determine precisely why the provisions in Victoria appear to be less effective than those in WA, but one likely explanation is the permissible length of bans in each jurisdiction. Victoria permits bans of up to 72 h compared with 12 months in WA. The imposition of a longer ban may increase the recipient's perception of its legitimacy, and the extended restriction on movement may have a more tangible effect on where they choose to go and how they subsequently behave.
When comparing offending records for 2 years before the imposition of a barring notice with those 2 years after its expiration, there were some different findings evident. The data attributed to prolific offenders/recipients of multiple banning notices does appear to skew the overall results—as recorded offences are significantly higher after the ban for the full cohort of recipients. It is possible that these individuals may receive more attention from police after receiving a ban, which then makes it more likely that further bans/offences are recorded. However, the difference in findings indicates that offences were lower post ban, when the exclusion from nightlife areas is included as part of the period that is analysed. This points to the barring notice being effective at reducing further offending for individuals who are likely to offend in nightlife spaces—the existence of the ban does appear to be associated with a lower level of offending. Whatever the reasons for the different offending patterns, the analysis highlights the importance of differentiating between different types of offenders when analysing data trends.
For prohibition order recipients there were no cohorts for whom the number of subsequent offences recorded were found to be significantly higher, within any of the analysis. But for multiple and prolific order recipients there was no change in the amount of offending recorded. Due to the complexity of determining the nature and severity of each recorded offence, a separate paper will provide a detailed examination of offence types.
Overall, the analysis of offending points to a more limited value of barring notices and prohibition orders for individuals with an already extensive history of offending. The nature and possible effects of these provisions appear to be of much less consequence to those with more complex offending records and who have already experienced more onerous penalties: they are less likely to change the behaviour of the recipient, or act as a meaningful deterrent.
The generally positive associations between receipt of a barring notices or prohibition order and the number of subsequent offences recorded for the majority of recipients indicates that both provisions are being used in a generally appropriate manner within their current policy framing. Given the demonstrably more limited value of barring notices, in particular, for repeat offenders, the findings do point to the potential for a key operational refinement. Unlike all other Australian jurisdictions, police-imposed barring notices in WA are not issued on the spot. The decision is made by the central LEU following consideration of relevant evidence. It is recommended that, as part of this centralised process, once the decision is made that the alleged behaviour or incident merits the imposition of a barring notice, the LEU should check the offending record of prospective recipients. This will enable the LEU to determine the appropriateness of a barring notice in the context of an individual's barring notice history, and offending record more generally. Particularly for individuals who have received a barring notice before, the LEU should consider a more individualised response or targeted intervention. The data from this study indicates that this will only be required for a small proportion of the overall number of barring notice recipients (currently approximately 5%) but it is this cohort for whom the barring notice appears to have less effect. The precise intervention will be dependent upon the individual's record and the nature of the alleged incident.
Other operational considerations relate to the length of bans that are imposed. Barring notices and prohibition orders can each be imposed for permissible maximums of 1 year and 5 years respectively. Within these ranges, order lengths are flexible and can be tailored to be suit individual circumstances. A separate paper is examining the data relating to ban lengths but, notwithstanding the findings, it is sensible to expect that, for multiple notice/order recipients, second and subsequent bans should be imposed for at least the same period as the first and, if possible, for longer periods.
In WA, barring notices and prohibition orders are imposed centrally (from within the LEU and the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor) only after consideration of relevant information and evidence. This mitigates potential concerns regarding consistency of application, individual officer over-reach and/or the subjectivity of discretionary decision-making, perceived fairness etc. It also enables both provisions to be tailored in response to individual circumstances, following consideration of relevant information relating to the incident and the offender.
5 CONCLUSION
This paper focuses on the individual effects of barring notices and prohibition orders—it does not examine public health or other broader benefits [15]. The analysis considers the totality of offending for recipients of the provisions examined. The low number of repeat barring notices (5% of the total) and prohibition orders (1% of the total) points to their overall success, and analysis of offending records before and after receipt of either provision indicates that both have a generally positive effect on subsequent behaviours. The effect is less positive for multiple ban recipients and prolific offenders.
Barring notices and prohibition orders are typically used in relation to alcohol-related anti-social behaviours, public disorder and other violent offences, but this paper has not examined the extent to which these behaviour patterns have been targeted, or are reflected in subsequent offender records. It is possible that offences recorded for individual recipients after receipt of a barring notice or prohibition order do not fall into these broad categories. The behaviours for which second and subsequent bans have been imposed typically align with the intended use of both provisions. This is to be expected, particularly given that imposition is not discretionary, and occurs only after consideration of available evidence. However, the benefits of the centralised decision-making process may be affected by service delivery variables, which influence decisions to pursue second and subsequent bans. For example, an individual believed to be behaving in a problematic manner may be known to the responding officer, who may then seek a barring notice more readily than for someone not known to them. This possibility reinforces the importance of a thorough and individualised review of an individual's record and the nature of the alleged offence, by the centralised team, to determine the most appropriate intervention.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Each author certifies that their contribution to this work meets the standards of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author/s wish to acknowledge the support and assistance provided by WA Police in undertaking this research. This paper has been approved for publication by WA Police Research Governance. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of WA Police and any errors of omission or commission are the responsibility of the author/s. Professor Miller receives funding from competitive government research grants, Barwon Health, VicHealth, 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, Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, Northern Territory government, Australian Rechabites Foundation, Northern Territory Primary Health Network, Lives Lived Well, Queensland government and Australian Drug Foundation, Queensland Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing and the Australasian Drug Strategy Conference. He has acted as a paid expert witness on behalf of Victoria Police, a licensed venue and a security firm. Dr Nicholas Taylor receives funding from competitive government research grants. This work was funded by WA Police, following a competitive tender process. Open access publishing facilitated by Deakin University, as part of the Wiley - Deakin University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
