Prison sentences for sovereign citizens who defamed solicitor

Along with Adam Sydney Brown, Mr and Ms Martin defamed a Perth practitioner in emails to high-ranking members of the legal profession, including the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the governor, and the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia.

The emails were found to contain “bizarre, irrational, scandalous” allegations that intended to “distress” the practitioner.

As part of the defamation findings, delivered in January, the Supreme Court made an order preventing Brown and the Martins from publishing statements concerning the practitioner and conveying any of the imputations set out in the offending emails.

Mr and Ms Martin breached that order when they published a so-called “statement of claim” to 12 people associated with a group called the Sovereign Peoples Assembly of Western Australia.

Sovereign citizens are a group of people who believe they have two identities: a fictitious “legal person” created by the nation’s government and a “living person” who is free from the law.

VIEW ALL

After the January orders, the practitioner and the Supreme Court received a letter from Mr Martin that contained a logo with a picture of scales and the words “Common Law” and “Sheriff”.

The letter asserted the Supreme Court had “acted outside of lawful jurisdiction” and the matter had been transferred to a “Common Law Court where it will be heard before a jury of our peers”.

A second email was sent to the practitioner in February with “court documents, statement of claim, and summons to appear”.

In a decision handed down in April, Justice Solomon found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr and Ms Martin had committed the criminal offence of contempt of court by submitting documents concerning the plaintiff to the Sovereign Peoples Assembly.

Justice Solomon refrained from sentencing Mr and Ms Martin until last week so they could seek legal advice and speak to an independent barrister, whose services were retained pro bono.

A document received by the Supreme Court asserted it “cannot instruct the Living Being” and they refused the barrister’s services because “that would change the jurisdiction of the standing of the Executor and Beneficiary, the Living Being, to incompetent and would turn us into the ALL CAPITALS name of the corporation”.

Mr and Ms Martin added they owed no further money to the practitioner and she was accountable to the “superior jurisdiction”.

Another document contained a “plethora of very disturbing material”, but Justice Solomon did not elaborate in his written reasons other than to say neither document would be relevant to penalty other than to note Mr and Ms Martin’s position on the Supreme Court’s power.

Justice Solomon said the court does not impose punitive measures in relation to people’s beliefs, and Mr and Ms Martin were entitled to them, “even if they are regarded by some as irrational, irritating or even offensive, or regarded by others as foolish or delusional”.

However, he said that at the same time, the court must remain vigilant to protect the administration of justice from conduct that could corrode public confidence in and respect for courts and the justice system.

“Mr and Ms Martin have told me more than once they are not dangerous people. The ideas they express, however, can be extremely dangerous,” Justice Solomon said.

“Dangerous ideas breed dangerous people, whether those people consider themselves to be peaceful, dangerous or otherwise.”

While it was “extremely regrettable” that the matter has caused financial and personal distress for both Mr and Ms Martin, it was “all the more regrettable because it was entirely avoidable”.

Justice Solomon said there was no alternative other than to impose a term of immediate imprisonment for both Mr and Ms Martin.

The case: Mitchelmore v Brown [No 7] [2025] WASC 247