No need to stop if ordered too by police

[GS608]

Originally Posted by burnz

as stated; police need probable cause.
the only thing realavent you posted is,,,

A police officer may request a person whose identity is unknown to the
officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer suspects on reasonable
grounds that the person may be able to assist in the investigation of an
alleged indictable offence because the person was at or near the place
where the alleged indictable offence occurred, whether before, when, or
soon after it occurred.
Note. Section 201 sets out safeguards relating to such a request.

and you need to read section 201..

everything else is a liability of the police, or they will be sued..

You do realise that Officers are protected by legislation and cannot be sued right?

[burnz]

jim this is your rights..
dont have to give a name,, get a warrant.
the judge is supposed to have your rights foremost prior to issue.
you have the right to challenge/debate that warrant with the issueing judge.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by 5.0

You do realise that Officers are protected by legislation and cannot be sued right?

wrong, police are not above the law they cannot hide behind their badge..
ombudsman will tell you the same..

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by burnz

jim this is your rights..
dont have to give a name,, get a warrant.
the judge is supposed to have your rights foremost prior to issue.
you have the right to challenge/debate that warrant with the issueing judge.

Police DO NOT NEED A WARRANT to ask you your name and address.
Does it need to be repeated over and over?
We dont have a Bill of rights... its not in constitution.
And if Police are carrying out their duties they cant be sued for something as simple as a arresting you because you failed to carry out a lawfull order.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Police DO NOT NEED A WARRANT to ask you your name and address.
Does it need to be repeated over and over?
We dont have a Bill of rights... its not in constitution.
And if Police are carrying out their duties they cant be sued for something as simple as a arresting you because you failed to carry out a lawfull order.

what has the bill of rights got to do with anything???

constitutional law is brittish..
the can ask for my name and addy but i dont have to answer and is NOT A LAWFULL ORDER..
just cause is not probable cause!!

i will leave you to argue with your self.

[shedcoupe]

I've been arrested a few times for various things and the bottom line for me is -
Cops are mostly very decent people who perform extremely demanding tasks on occasion that would turn most people's hair grey, and should be treated with the consideration that you'd expect for yourself.
Sure there are some hardnuts out there, but you've really got to go with the flow unless there's only one of them, and even then the blue gang is bigger than you and they'll get you eventually if they want to.
Cops are usually too busy to bother you for no reason, though some beginner-cops are a bit officious, and they may even be a bit frightened, which makes them jumpy.
People hate cops until they need one.
And yes, I've been bashed for no reason by a cop - he was embarrassed because I got past him during a uranium-export blockade, and I didn't resist arrest.
I was lucky not to have a broken neck from what went on and escaped a life in a wheelchair.
Mr Spratt in WA who's been in the news recently seems to have been tortured in custody, so make notes of what happened ASAP if this sort of thing happens to you.

So if a cop tells you to pull over - pull over. There might be a fire under your car. And don't do the stupid cop-annoying "what's the charge ?" thing - they can arrest you without having to tell you why.
That said, it is important to resist authoritarian police forces / services like the cops that served Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen KCMG (charged, but not convicted. Unfortunately).

[FGII-XR6]

A simple way to avoid this in the future is to instruct police to use the phrase " stop you are under arrest" this then obliges the person to stop and failure to do so is resisting arrest not resisting police, it's all in what they say
So in reality this does not post an insurmountable problem for police just minor operational changes
It would require steps such as, when commencing questioning a person to first say “I am detaining you under arrest for questioning” to then run is resisting arrest
This court outcome would not apply whilst driving as you are legally obliged to follow police instruction while in control of a vehicle but if someone is pulled over once they stop they could run as a result of this reading so when the officer approaches the car he would need to advise the motorist he was under arrest for questioning

as far as police powers of arrest are concerned this comes from the NSW police website http://www.policensw.com/info/misc_gun/arrest1.html

The main power of arrest is created in section 352 of the Crimes Act NSW. This section gives both police and civilians the power of arrest. A police officer or civilian can arrest without a warrant, any person who is in the Act of committing, or immediately after having committed, an offence punishable, whether by indictment, or on a summary conviction, under an Act, and any person who has committed a felony for which the person has not been tried.
A Police officer has a further power of arrest under that section. A Police Officer can also arrest without warrant a person whom the constable, with reasonable grounds, suspects of having committed any such offence or crime. A constable can arrest any person lying, or loitering in any highway, yard or other place during the night, whom the constable, with reasonable grounds, suspects of being about to commit any felony.
The Crimes Act also gives the police the power to arrest people for whom a justice has issued a warrant, to arrest prisoners who are unlawfully at large and for some offences that were committed in another state.
Other Acts, such as the Road Transport (Traffic Safety and Management) Act, also provide for powers of Arrest. The Road Transport (Traffic Safety and Management) Act provides a power of arrest for a person who fails a breath test at the side of the road so that the constable can take that person to the nearest police station for the purpose of a breath analysis.

[Spudz27]

It is all this human rights bs that has the law in the shambles it is today. I agree police need probable cause to stop you they can't just say "oi get here you robbed a shop etc" but you shouldn't need to debate the issue of giving your name and details, at the end of the day if you have nothing to hide why wouldn't you. Not like it is going to hurt in any way, help the guys do their job. So sick of people claiming "human rights" all the time and acting like the police are scum because they may have been pulled over, or because they have been in trouble before. The attitude some people have towards police is shocking, just let them do their job. I attended a job where a guy was king hit, the crowd were abusing the police for simply asking them to give us some room, yet when I asked they moved back, so what was the difference, the officer asked exactly the same question. So as I said we shouldn't need to debate the whole issue of giving details etc, just do it if asked unless you are hiding something it shouldn't be an issue.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by burnz

what has the bill of rights got to do with anything???

constitutional law is brittish..
the can ask for my name and addy but i dont have to answer and is NOT A LAWFULL ORDER..
just cause is not probable cause!!

i will leave you to argue with your self.

well done! since you cant even be bothered to answer questions your only option is to "leave it to myself!"

You are the one who brought up the Australian Constitution!
I have asked for the relevent law to be shown where you have a Bill of Rights and you havent shown it.
the simple answer is WE DONT HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS in Australia.
Our constitution does not refer to "your rights" at all.

Your link was to the DFAT site... the Dept of foriegn affairs and trade...
On the link it talks about Human Rights.... This is part of the UNITED NATIONS Bill of Human Rights...

The relevent law has been shown over and over and you still refuse to answer simple questions of where you can refuse to answer questions from Police.

As per your example of "get a warrant" lets use it in this context.
A murder occurs next door, police come knocking on your door to ask questions. By your logic (ignorance) Police need a warrant to ask you questions while performing their duties to investigate a crime.

Here is another.... A armed robbery is commited, your a witness, police ask you qestions, again by your ignorance Police need a warrant to ask what you saw.

The Police Powers Act is very clear what Police can do.
There is no bill of Rights in this country.
The constitution in this country does not refer to your rights.
Your the one who brought it up, not me.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Spudz27

It is all this human rights bs that has the law in the shambles it is today. I agree police need probable cause to stop you they can't just say "oi get here you robbed a shop etc" but you shouldn't need to debate the issue of giving your name and details, at the end of the day if you have nothing to hide why wouldn't you. Not like it is going to hurt in any way, help the guys do their job. So sick of people claiming "human rights" all the time and acting like the police are scum because they may have been pulled over, or because they have been in trouble before. The attitude some people have towards police is shocking, just let them do their job. I attended a job where a guy was king hit, the crowd were abusing the police for simply asking them to give us some room, yet when I asked they moved back, so what was the difference, the officer asked exactly the same question. So as I said we shouldn't need to debate the whole issue of giving details etc, just do it if asked unless you are hiding something it shouldn't be an issue.

In my very honest opinion - I think the emphasis has become on what the US does, with the exception of the penalties laid out to those who commit offenses such as these.

The society that was around 30 years ago rarely questioned authority, even 15 years ago we rarely questioned it - we knew that the police had certain abilities - and we didn't want to suffer the consequences of that.

If you slipped on something wet in the supermarket, you looked around to make sure no-one had seen you, get up and walk away, now we sue.

These days, authority is always questioned - we live in a world where police can be called names, told to get ****** and the courts suggest that this is their job, and it's all okay. We stroke the ego of the certain few that believe it's okay to behave in this fashion, and before you know it, it's caught on, and everyone believes that it's okay.

It's really no surprise anymore...

[Dave3911]

I think the far majority of people here have either misread the original article about what has happened & don't fully understand what is being debated here.

The issue here is very simply the application in law of the charge of "resist police". Does the act of running away, in itself constitute resisting? Note that the article doesn't say anywhere that the police had no right to question him, or detain him. Once they caught up with him, he was detained and questioned (and subsequently arrested for being drunk in a public place). Take note that he was NOT charged over the non payment at the restaurant he was at. Generally speaking, such disputes are civil in nature and won't result in a criminal charge.

Nothing anyone (including you Jim) has posted has shown that it is an offence to run away. Which is the key here. Nobody (not even the Magistrate in the original article) is saying that the police don't have the power to detain or search without warrant. All they are saying is the act of running, in these circumstances, didnt constitute "resistance" to that lawful act.

The Powers of Police aren't in debate here at all. It's whether it is an offence to run that is.

Looking at the details we have. I can see how the magistrate could come to this conclusion.

In a ruling in Melbourne Magistrates' Court that is believed to be an Australian first, magistrate Simon Garnett found that Mr Hamilton had a "moral or social duty to stop when requested to do so and assist the police", but was not legally obliged to do so.

So we have someone who has committed no crime and was involved in a civil dispute with a restaraunt owner over payment. Police would know this when they approached him - as it was likely they were called there by the restaraunt. When approached by police, without speaking to them at all, he ran (no further than 500m). When they caught up with him, seemingly he was compliant (as there is no mention of any other type of resist). He was questioned & arrested for an unrelated offence.

Whilst I agree with the tone of the article, that it sets a dangerous precident, I can certainly see the point in law that is being made here.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

In my very honest opinion - I think the emphasis has become on what the US does, with the exception of the penalties laid out to those who commit offenses such as these.

The society that was around 30 years ago rarely questioned authority, even 15 years ago we rarely questioned it - we knew that the police had certain abilities - and we didn't want to suffer the consequences of that.

If you slipped on something wet in the supermarket, you looked around to make sure no-one had seen you, get up and walk away, now we sue.

These days, authority is always questioned - we live in a world where police can be called names, told to get ****** and the courts suggest that this is their job, and it's all okay. We stroke the ego of the certain few that believe it's okay to behave in this fashion, and before you know it, it's caught on, and everyone believes that it's okay.

It's really no surprise anymore...

i agree with everything you have stated, as for us questioning authority 30 yr ago it was never asked..
differant time differant police, state by laws were in it's infantcy..

to protest against the establishment under the commowealth of australia (constitution),
is now illegal as civil unrest (state by law).. which is dropped immediately as it is no contest.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

I think the far majority of people here have either misread the original article about what has happened & don't fully understand what is being debated here.

The issue here is very simply the application in law of the charge of "resist police". Does the act of running away, in itself constitute resisting? Note that the article doesn't say anywhere that the police had no right to question him, or detain him. Once they caught up with him, he was detained and questioned (and subsequently arrested for being drunk in a public place). Take note that he was NOT charged over the non payment at the restaurant he was at. Generally speaking, such disputes are civil in nature and won't result in a criminal charge.

Nothing anyone (including you Jim) has posted has shown that it is an offence to run away. Which is the key here. Nobody (not even the Magistrate in the original article) is saying that the police don't have the power to detain or search without warrant. All they are saying is the act of running, in these circumstances, didnt constitute "resistance" to that lawful act.

The Powers of Police aren't in debate here at all. It's whether it is an offence to run that is.

Looking at the details we have. I can see how the magistrate could come to this conclusion.

In a ruling in Melbourne Magistrates' Court that is believed to be an Australian first, magistrate Simon Garnett found that Mr Hamilton had a "moral or social duty to stop when requested to do so and assist the police", but was not legally obliged to do so.

So we have someone who has committed no crime and was involved in a civil dispute with a restaraunt owner over payment. Police would know this when they approached him - as it was likely they were called there by the restaraunt. When approached by police, without speaking to them at all, he ran (no further than 500m). When they caught up with him, seemingly he was compliant (as there is no mention of any other type of resist). He was questioned & arrested for an unrelated offence.

Whilst I agree with the tone of the article, that it sets a dangerous precident, I can certainly see the point in law that is being made here.

The police didn't have time to give the official warning before he ran off. That seems to be the legal problem.
Police must give that warning.
Sec 201 (2C) a&b that Jim Goose refered to in post #28

[Jim Goose]

No the problem is that Police charged the person with the wrong offence.

You still have to obey a policemans order as per the laws shown.

The magistrate also erred when he said you only have a "moral" obligation to stop when directed by the Police. This is WRONG. What he is saying (incorrectly) is that you can keep driving when directed by Police to pull over at an RBT, or keep speeding when being chased by Police etc etc etc....

The charge of resisting arrest is wrong....

Burnz you have again mentioned the constitution... and again you are wrong.

to protest against the establishment under the commowealth of australia (constitution),
is now illegal as civil unrest (state by law).. which is dropped immediately as it is no contest.

I am still waiting for the magical link to the constitional law which gives you your rights.... You seem to be confused with America.
We dont have a bill of rights and we have NO RIGHTS in the constitution.

You still havent answered my question as to why YOU provided a link to the DFAT website which talks about the UNITED NATIONS Human Rights.

[Auslandau]

Ford Forums are a wonderful place to decipher Constitutional law ..... where it is usually debated by the Supreme Court with a bunch of QC's paid over $1000.00 per minute for months on end with usually no conclusion .....