Executive Summary

The Protected Entertainment Precincts (PEP) scheme restricts freedom of movement by banning people who have engaged in certain unlawful behaviour from entering five PEP areas for up to five years. 

It was enacted following an unprovoked attack resulting in the tragic death of Mr Giuseppe Raco in Northbridge in July 2020. It reflects Parliament’s clear intention to improve public safety in areas containing a high concentration of licensed premises. Legislation establishing the scheme passed with almost unanimous support in November 2022.

The scheme confers substantial powers and distinct responsibilities on the office of the Director of Liquor Licensing (the Director) and the Western Australia Police Force (WA Police). 

The Director’s responsibilities include: identifying and notifying all automatic excluded offenders; deciding extended exclusion order (EEO) applications and their terms; publishing information on exclusions; and making information available about PEP areas and any changes to them.

The Commissioner of Police (Police Commissioner), and WA Police more broadly, are responsible for administering all aspects of short-term exclusion orders (STEOs); applying for EEOs; and enforcing the scheme by charging and prosecuting people who breach their exclusion conditions.

Parliament requires the office of the Ombudsman to independently monitor the PEP scheme due to its effects on citizens' rights and duties. Specifically, under the Liquor Control Act 1988 (the Act), I am required to report on:

1. the operation of, and exercise of powers under, the PEP scheme; and
2. the impact on any group that is particularly affected by the PEP scheme.

This is my first report following the initial three years of the scheme’s operation (the monitoring period). During the monitoring period my office has regularly engaged with the Director’s representative, the Racing, Gaming and Liquor unit (RGL) within the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety (the Department), and WA Police. Our oversight has included regular meetings, inspections of relevant records at each agency, reviewing information and analysing data about individuals subject to the scheme. 

This first report addresses three questions.

1. Has the scheme enhanced safety and confidence? 

People’s views about safety in PEP areas have improved or remained stable since the scheme began. In a survey of 1,000 people, more people said they felt safer than less safe in PEP areas (25 per cent compared to 16 per cent). More people also said the areas felt more welcoming than less welcoming (41.9 per cent compared to 13.5 per cent). However, these results reflect people’s views at a point in time and cannot only be linked to the PEP scheme.

Perceptions of safety are influenced by a range of factors, including improved street lighting and streetscapes, the extent of CCTV coverage, visible police presence, and community events that are positively experienced by the public.

Although some offence data suggests a lower growth of reported offences in PEP areas compared with the greater metropolitan area, the data is inconclusive. It is not possible to directly compare the data sets, and the monitoring period is too short to make inferences about safety having been improved.

2. Has the scheme been implemented well?

Notable shortcomings were identified with how the Department is implementing key parts of the scheme. Significantly, the available information indicates that some automatic excluded offenders may not have been identified and excluded when they should have been. Manual methods for identifying automatic excluded offenders remain error-prone and opportunities to access and utilise authoritative information sources have not eventuated.

Stakeholders also reported that the Department’s secure webpage has limited practical use because it is not compatible with common ID-scanning systems. This limits the industry’s ability to play its role in the scheme to enhance safety. 

WA Police have generally put in place key systems needed to carry out their responsibilities. However, we identified instances where STEOs were issued despite not meeting the required threshold, where the guidelines have not been appropriately or consistently applied, and where wrong breach offence provisions were charged. We also identified concerns that a one-size-fits-all approach has been taken to STEOs and exclusions were being enforced without properly considering a person’s individual circumstances. This can increase the risk of people being charged with a breach, even when they may have a legitimate defence or permitted reason for being in a PEP area.

Pleasingly, the Police Commissioner has indicated that policing guidelines will be reviewed to give more weight to individual circumstances and permitted reasons for people being in a PEP area. This review would also examine the feasibility of nighttime only STEOs. 

As the PEP scheme confers significant powers to restrict freedom of movement and with breaches carrying criminal consequences, it is vital that the scheme is administered fairly and in accordance with the law.

3. Have some communities been adversely impacted?

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Aboriginal people), people experiencing homelessness and people experiencing mental health conditions or cognitive impairments are particularly affected by STEOs issued under the scheme. 

The principal impacts are social exclusion, greater marginalisation, reduced access to support services, and an increased risk of deeper involvement in the criminal justice system. This arises through disproportionate or overuse of STEOs and practical barriers to complying with exclusion requirements. Aboriginal people informed us that the scheme also compounds prior trauma, making them feel less safe which further undermines their trust in public institutions. 

Significantly, the scheme’s negative impacts compound for people who have overlapping vulnerabilities.

Concluding remarks

I thank the Director, Police Commissioner and their officers for their cooperation and constructive engagement during the monitoring period.

I am grateful to the PEP monitoring team and all stakeholders and members of the public who took the time to contribute to this report, whether through submissions, public surveys or through the consultation processes. I particularly acknowledge members of the Aboriginal community who shared their experiences and perspectives with us. Their contributions were critical to understanding how the scheme operates on the ground, and the impacts it has on Aboriginal people and communities.

The scheme is still relatively new. The seven recommendations are designed to support the scheme’s objectives, of enhancing public safety and confidence in PEP areas, by ensuring exclusions are pursued effectively and fairly and in a way that Parliament intended.

Bevan Warner
Ombudsman

More context and detail is provided in the footnotes of the full report.