Short v Director of Public Prosecutions

In *Short v Director of Public Prosecutions*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Mr Short, had been convicted of a number of offences, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and resisting arrest. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by police during the course of Mr Short's arrest.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence, which included statements made by Mr Short and items found in his possession, had been obtained in contravention of the *Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006* (Vic). Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the police conduct during the arrest infringed Mr Short's right to liberty and security of person, and his right to be treated with humanity and dignity. The Court also had to assess whether, if there had been a contravention, the evidence should have been excluded under section 38 of the *Charter*.

The Court reasoned that the right to liberty and security of person, as protected by section 11 of the *Charter*, does not confer an unfettered right to resist lawful arrest. While the right to liberty is fundamental, it can be lawfully curtailed in circumstances such as a lawful arrest. The Court found that the police had acted lawfully in arresting Mr Short, and therefore his resistance to that arrest was not a lawful exercise of his rights. Consequently, the evidence obtained as a result of the lawful arrest and subsequent resistance was not rendered inadmissible by reason of a contravention of the *Charter*. The Court emphasised that the *Charter* does not create new rights to resist lawful authority, but rather provides a framework for interpreting and applying existing laws in a manner consistent with human rights.

The appeal was dismissed.