Muhunthan Janani, Angell Blake, Wilson Andrew, Reeve Belinda, Jan Stephen
The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sax Institute, New South Wales.
The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales.
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017 Aug;41(4):365-370. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12666. Epub 2017 Jun 29.
While governments draft law and policy to promote public health, it is through cases put before the judiciary that the implementation of law can be challenged and where its practical implications are typically determined. In this paper, we examine the role of court judgements on efforts in Australia to regulate the harmful use of alcohol.
Australian case law (2010 to June 2015) involving the judicial review of administrative decisions relating to development applications or liquor licences for retail liquor outlets (bottle shops), hotels, pubs and clubs was identified using a case law database (WestLaw AU). Data were extracted and analysed using standard systematic review techniques.
A total of 44 cases were included in the analysis. Of these, 90% involved appeals brought by industry actors against local or state government stakeholders seeking to reject applications for development applications and liquor licences. The proportion of judicial decisions resulting in outcomes in favour of industry was 77%.
Public health research evidence appeared to have little or no influence, as there is no requirement for legislation to consider public health benefit. Implications for public health: A requirement that the impact on public health is considered in legislation will help to offset its strong pro-competition emphasis, which in turn has strongly influenced judicial decision making in this area.
当政府起草法律和政策以促进公众健康时，正是通过提交给司法机构的案例，法律的实施才会受到挑战，其实际影响也通常由此确定。在本文中，我们考察了法院判决在澳大利亚管制酒精有害使用的努力中所起的作用。
利用一个判例法数据库（WestLaw AU），识别出2010年至2015年6月期间澳大利亚涉及对与零售酒类商店（售酒商店）、酒店、酒吧和俱乐部的开发申请或酒类许可证相关行政决定进行司法审查的判例法。使用标准的系统评价技术提取和分析数据。
共有44个案例纳入分析。其中，90%的案例涉及行业参与者针对寻求驳回开发申请和酒类许可证申请的地方或州政府利益相关者提起的上诉。司法判决结果有利于行业的比例为77%。
公共卫生研究证据似乎几乎没有影响，因为立法没有要求考虑公共卫生益处。对公共卫生的启示：立法中要求考虑对公共卫生的影响，将有助于抵消其强烈的支持竞争的重点，而这反过来又对该领域的司法决策产生了强烈影响。
