"The police were going to appeal the case."If you read what it...

"The police were going to appeal the case."

If you read what it says in the news article I posted way above; you'd know the article I posted was in relation to the dismissal of the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions Appeal by Justice Kaye in the Supreme Court of Victoria after a magistrate had already dismissed the original charge of resisting police.

Are you suggesting the case went before the High Court on appeal?
You now appear to directly contradict, in your post, whether the Common Law principle I quoted still exists?
Are you suggesting a Case Law or legislated Statute Law has now replaced this 2011 decision?

"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."

Justice Kaye ruled that despite the very audible police protestations to Mr Hamilton to stop, at the time the man fled, he was however not under arrest and so therefore he was not resisting arrest nor was he compelled to stop. In other words if you cannot catch and detain a person then they've not been arrested.
that is an ancient common law principle!

Yet now you assert the police don't even need to tell a person they're arrested "if it is too hard"!
What next, perhaps a person is considered under arrest on sight and anyone within sight of a police officer must freeze assuming they're arrested.