OC, I've read that post carefully and there is nothing there about a person who has not been arrested being required to provide name and address rather it says a person may be arrested if there is no other lawful way to find out who they are. From what I've read a person must provide name and address only if they are under arrest.
Many of those statements you've posted would appear to me to be contradictory to Supreme Court judge's [Justice Stephen Kaye] 2011 decision I have quoted above where his decision in reference to the bolter Mr Hamilton says:
"Justice Kaye said it was an ancient principle of the common law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police, or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right.
(Mr Hamilton) before being placed under arrest did not have any obligation to stop when requested to do so, or to answer questions asked of him,'' the judge said.
"The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the common law for centuries.''
The judge dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions appeal against a magistrate's dismissal of a charge of resisting police."
Insert the name of the young woman assaulted by police on the streets of Melbourne, in place of Mr Hamilton's name, whom we know had no common law obligation to stop and be arrested according to the Supreme Court of Victoria judge in 2011.
