Sovereign citizens here to stay, law expert warns

Law expert with the University of NSW, Associate Professor Harry Hobbs, said that while no pseudolegal argument has ever succeeded in an Australian court – or in courts within New Zealand, Canada, and the United States – the practice is not likely to come to an end.

“The pseudolaw peak may be passing, but cases are still presenting in court. The practice is likely here to stay, and our legal system will need to find new ways to counteract the ways it will evolve,” he said.

According to Hobbs, those who buy into the SovCit ideology believe they have two identities: a fictitious “legal person” created by the government and a “living person” who is their true, free self. They believe the law has power over the former only.

SovCit ideologies developed in the United States out of a “potent mix of racially motivated, extremist political and religious organisations”, Hobbs said. The ideology has been linked to police killings and domestic terrorism, including the 6 January Capitol riot.

For example, Arizona man and sovereign citizen Donald Day Jr allegedly communicated with a Queensland family, who held extreme Christian beliefs, before he was accused of inciting violence online.

VIEW ALL

In the matter of Pivotto v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing, the presiding member said sovereign citizens believe the laws of the state do not apply to them because they have revoked their consent and consider themselves to have “natural rights”.

“Usually they oppose the very foundations of our democracy and rely on pseudolegal language, piecemeal, cryptic and often incorrect legal arguments to assert their independence,” the member said.

In the case of a South Australian man with a $95 parking fine, his pseudolegal arguments saw him advance the matter through an appeal in the Supreme Court. In the end, he was convicted and bore the total costs of $5,085 for fines, a levy, and legal costs.

Hobbs said there have been “rare cases” where a court has been unable to uncover a “real legal claim” and help a sovereign citizen to understand pseudolaw will not assist their case.

NSW Magistrate David Heilpern spent over three hours considering Robert Study’s argument, who later told researchers he was impressed by the magistrates’ empathy and knowledge.

Study went on to establish a significant database tracking pseudolaw and advocates against the practice in an attempt to protect sovereign citizens from financial loss and criminal convictions.

While some may not be ready to hear reasonable suggestions, Hobbs said that “calling them stupid won’t help”.

“If a person isn’t violent, the best approach is to listen and try to understand the deeper issue, often a crisis like divorce, money troubles, or losing a home. Strong relationships and genuine listening are the first step towards helping them rethink their views,” he said.

Moving forward, Hobbs said courts are seeing “more instances” of non-Indigenous people making pseudolegal arguments that use terms related to Indigenous sovereignty. Meanwhile, some Indigenous people use sovereign citizen terms to challenge the state.

“Australian law treats sovereignty the same, whether they’re made by an Indigenous community or some guy who reckons he should be king. Whereas countries like Canada, the United States and New Zealand, which have treaty or treaties in place, recognise that Indigenous claims are different,” Hobbs said.

“The evolving pseudolegal overlaps are deeply concerning – they risk undermining the dignity of Indigenous law and weakening broader efforts to have Indigenous rights and sovereignty meaningfully recognised in our legal and political systems.”