We hear a lot about the behaviour of young people in Moolooaba, both in their cars and on foot.

Most of what we hear causes members of the public concern and makes them believe young people are breaking the law on a regular basis. That is not always the case.

In court yesterday, I represented a young person charged with committing a public nuisance and obstructing the police.

The events took place in the Mooloolaba carpark about 11pm, when police alleged that my client used threatening language and was shaping up to them and attacking them, thereby justifying his arrest.

They also alleged that he struggled to try to get free while under arrest, obstructing them in the performance of their duties.

There were three police officers whose evidence showed some grave inconsistencies when tested. Nonetheless, all three gave evidence that my client acted in a threatening manner, both in his words and his actions.

The case for the defendant was that he had done nothing wrong, and that he had not said anything to the police other than asking why they had arrested his mate (this case is currently before the court).

We argued that my client, after asking the police that question, was tackled, had his shoulder dislocated by the actions of officers and was thrown to the ground, where he had police knees placed in his back and a forearm across his neck while he was face-down in the grass screaming out in pain because of his shoulder.

After two days of trial, the Magistrate found that the arrest by the police was unlawful. He was not satisfied that my client had done anything to justify him being arrested.

The necessary implication was that the police allegations were dismissed as being untrue. The Magistrate, in making adverse findings against the police, said that the actions of the police were enough to create an uncomfortable feeling.

The Magistrate found my client not guilty of both charges and ordered that the police pay his costs.

Of concern was that a witness, another young man, gave evidence that he caught all of the action on his mobile phone camera and made this known to my client and police, only to be arrested for “looking at police”.

While under arrest, he watched as a police officer played with his phone for several minutes. He later found that the video footage had been deleted. This should cause all of us some concern.

The decision is an important one for a number of reasons.

Firstly, for my client and his family. My client protested his innocence all along. Through the tremendous family support and belief in him, I was instructed to take the case on.

The family is very relieved by the decision.

I hope this case will enable parents of young people facing charges of this nature to have some confidence that their children may well be telling them the truth when they describe events similar those of this case.

Secondly, these charges – namely public nuisance and obstructing police – are, in my opinion, used too often by police where conduct does not amount to an offence.

It is not only my opinion; I am supported by numerous court decisions which have found that conduct fell short of a criminal offence.

This case should reinforce comments made by the High Court of Australia. In the case of Coleman v Power [2004] 220 CLR 1, Justice Kirby noted: “There is no prospect that the respondent police officers would be provoked to unlawful physical violence by words used. At least the law would not impute that possibility to police officers who, like other public officials, are expected to be thick skinned and broad shouldered in the performance of their duties.”

The bottom line is that police can arrest someone only for conduct that could be considered a crime. If they arrest without evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, as was the case here, that arrest is unlawful.

The result is important because, if a person resists an unlawful arrest, they are not guilty of obstructing the police. The person would also have a defence if they were alleged to have assaulted the police if resisting an unlawful arrest.

They still are not permitted to go too far – that is, that the actions to resist must be reasonable. I am not advising people to go about resisting because they believe that are being unlawfully arrested; that is something that should be determined in court.

Thirdly, this decision will hopefully result in everyone remaining free to gather, free to speak, free to enjoy Mooloolaba and the rest of the Sunshine Coast and being able to do so without being unnecessarily dealt with by police.

Fourthly, my client has rights in respect of the detention that followed that would also be considered unlawful. In this case, that amounted to around six hours of detention, not to mention the dislocated shoulder!

This case should cause all of us concern.