Hindering police, failing to stop, and the Act : omission distinction

In Taufahema v The Queen, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal held that the failure to stop a vehicle when directed to do so by police in order to evade apprehension does not amount to hindering police under the Crimes Act 1900 NSW. The Court relied on an apparently strong line of legal authority that requires an overt positive act (rather than mere inaction) to form the actus reus of the offence of 'hindering'. We argue that this requirement is supported neither by authority nor by general principle. We suggest that the courts' narrow interpretation of 'hinder' in this case and in others is symptomatic of a long-held, (but, in this case, unnecessary) aversion to imposing liability for negative acts (or omissions). We suggest that legislative intervention is necessary to resolve the issue of whether a negative act can amount to hindering a police officer.