Is a 24 hour ban such a bad thing?

A key element in Australian policing in recent years is the growth of police-imposed discretionary summary justice. The rise and impact of on-the-spot fines, infringement notices, exclusion orders and move-on powers enable police-initiated resolutions and punishments to be imposed, often without legal or judicial intervention. These operational policing mechanisms reflect underlying pressures to reduce costs, ease the burden on the court system, and speed up the decision-making process, but when viewed from a human rights perspective the potential consequences are significant. Focusing on the legislative development of banning notices in Victoria, this article highlights the impact of such a police-imposed punishment upon individual due process procedural protections. Banning notices deny the recipient the right to conduct a defence, undermine the presumption of innocence, and conflate notions of pre-emption and punishment. The rhetoric upon which the banning notice legislation is predicated obviates meaningful scrutiny of the diminution of individual rights that are implicit in its enactment. A perceived ‘need’ to control disorder and ‘re-balance’ justice to prioritise community protection is used to legitimise any consequential impact upon the principles of criminal law, due process and human rights.