'Sovereign citizens' sentenced to prison term in Western Australia for defiance of court order

Two 'sovereign citizens' have been sentenced to a month in jail, with a judge warning their "extremely dangerous" ideas would not be tolerated.
Jerald Martin and Emma Hazel Martin had been locked in a defamation battle with their former lawyer after the relationship soured in mid-2023.
That led to them sending an email to a number of senior public officials suggesting there were grounds for investigating their lawyer for a number of crimes, including fraud.
After being ordered not to repeat those claims, the pair were found guilty of doing so, and according to the court refused legal assistance to defend the breach.
A sovereign citizen is someone who wrongly believes they are not subject to Australian federal, state or local law, because they think the laws are incorrect and therefore invalid.
They often question the authority of the government, tax system and legal system, and they are usually self-represented litigants.
The cohort are becoming an increasing burden on the Australian courts, a New South Wales Magistrate told the ABC.
In this case, Mr and Ms Martin argued that the court is a "corporate entity" and "cannot instruct the living being".
Earlier in those proceedings, Supreme Court Justice Paul Tottle found the pair relied on what were described as "pseudo law concepts … of the nature frequently invoked by those described as 'sovereign citizens".
At their sentencing, Supreme Court Justice Marcus Solomon said it was "of grave importance that a message be sent not just to Mr and Ms Martin, but to the general community that views of this nature will not be tolerated".
"Mr and Ms Martin have told me more than once they are not dangerous people," he wrote.
"The ideas they express, however, can be extremely dangerous.
"Dangerous ideas breed dangerous people, whether those people consider themselves to be peaceful, dangerous or otherwise."
Court documents show the pair had originally approached a Perth-based lawyer for advice in May 2021 after their wellness business was impacted by roadworks associated with the state government's Metronet rail project.
After the relationship deteriorated, Mr and Ms Martin sent an email to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, Government House, then-Attorney General John Quigley, the Police Commissioner, two Commonwealth MPs and others.
The email was later described by the Supreme Court as "grossly defamatory" for suggesting there were grounds for investigating whether the lawyer had committed a range of crimes, including fraud.
"[The claims] had no foundation in fact. They were wholly indefensible and never should have been made," Justice Paul Tottle found, ordering the pair not to publish those claims again.
Justice Solomon found the duo had breached that order, including by repeating those claims in an online group called the "Sovereign Peoples Assembly of Western Australia", earlier this year.
In defending the breach, the pair filed a number of further documents with the court with one reading: "The court is a corporate entity, it is not a living being."
"As it is inferior jurisdiction, it cannot instruct the living being," another section read.
'If either JUDGE (sic) is found to be presiding over any matters, repercussions will be forthcoming," another document read.
Justice Solomon described their rejection of the court's authority as "defiant and explicit", acknowledging both "have only been prejudiced by what they have done".
"They explained that they had suffered enormous financial distress in terms of both their business, their income, their financial circumstances and their relationships," he wrote.
"That is extremely regrettable. It is all the more regrettable because it was entirely avoidable."
In deciding on the punishment to impose, Justice Solomon said "retribution" was required because it was essential to the functioning of the court system that orders are obeyed.
"If they are defied or ignored, the whole system of dispute resolution by litigation breaks down," the judgement read.
The duo were "quite entitled to their beliefs", Justice Solomon wrote, "even if they are regarded by some as irrational, irritating or even offensive".
"In a tolerant and humane society, people must be entitled to hold such beliefs without fear of sanction or punishment from the state," he wrote.
"However, at the same time, the court must be concerned with and must remain vigilant to protect the administration of justice from conduct, including on occasion, the expression of views that corrode public confidence in and respect for the courts and the justice system.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

ABC News

3 hours ago

• ABC News

Iran's three options after Trump's strikes

Sam Hawley: After the US bombing of key Iranian nuclear facilities, Donald Trump is now openly advocating for regime change to make Iran great again, he says. But is that really a possibility? Today, Ali Vaez from the International Crisis Group on the three options now open to Iran and why surrender is not the one it'll go for. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Ali, we're going to unpack what we should expect next in this Israel-Iran war. But first, I just want to discuss the messaging out of Washington, which is really quite mixed. Donald Trump and his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, say the American bombing does not mean the United States has joined the war, but it's also warning Iran it could very well go further. Pete Hegseth, United States Secretary of Defense: The United States does not seek war. But let me be clear, we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened. Donald Trump, President of the United States: There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Sam Hawley: What do you make of that? Ali Vaez: Well, this is one of the problems with President Trump, isn't it, that he constantly moves the goalposts. And this is one of the reasons I think that the Iranians are extremely reluctant to re-engage him in negotiations. He started negotiations with the Iranians in his second term based on the goal of Iran having no nuclear weapons. Then during the course of the negotiations, that shifted to zero enrichment, meaning that Iran should completely dismantle its nuclear program. And during the war, it basically asked Iran to completely surrender and now is asking for regime change. So it is very difficult for the Iranians to look at him as a reliable negotiating partner. Sam Hawley: Because, yes, Donald Trump is now openly saying this is not just about Iran's nuclear program. On his social media site, Truth Social, he said it's time to make Iran great again, hinting at regime change. Ali Vaez: Yes, that's right. It's very interesting because in May, the president was in the region visiting Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. And during his trip, he had a major speech in which he basically said that he believed that past regime change policies of the United States in the region were misguided and had always backfired. And the region is a better place to determine his own fate rather than it being imposed from the outside. In Donald Trump, President of the United States: In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. And the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. Ali Vaez: But now he seems to be back in the regime change business, which, of course, is also something that his MAGA base, America First isolationist base, does not like to see. But I do believe that also President Trump has this approach that is based on threatening in order to get what he wants. And he might be considering that threatening Iran with regime change at a time of extreme vulnerability for the Iranian regime might actually force them to come back to the negotiating table. But it would produce the exact opposite of what he has in mind. Sam Hawley: And Ali, interesting to note that Trump opening the door to regime change actually came on the same day that his vice president, J.D. Vance, and the Defense Secretary were insisting that that was not the goal of the United States. J.D. Vance, Vice President of the United States: We don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program. Pete Hegseth, United States Secretary of Defense: This mission was not and has not been about regime change. The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interests. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Ali, of course, I want to discuss with you what could actually happen next and what Iran's response will be and the world's response to this. Can I just start briefly with the US's Western allies? Before the strikes, they were concerned, but they're now backing Donald Trump in, aren't they? Ali Vaez: That is right. The Western countries, especially European countries, they were still thinking that there is a diplomatic option that the US is interested in. And yet once the US took military action, they all supported it without condemning something that in international norms is considered a war of aggression. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, our response from our foreign minister, Penny Wong, has also shifted in this way, shifted behind Donald Trump. Speaker 3: The world has agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. So, yes, we support action to prevent that. And that is what this is. Sam Hawley: Let's turn now to what Iran might do and what support it actually has in the region, which is very limited, isn't it? Just explain that. Ali Vaez: Yeah, look, Iran is alone. It doesn't have any outside security guarantors. It's not like North Korea that can count on China. It's not a member of any kind of security alliance. It doesn't have anyone who's rushing to its rescue. It has close relations with Russia and with China. It has strategic partnerships with both of those countries. But none of it includes a security partnership that they would actually rush to Iranian defence. And I think the Russians are even secretly happy because these tensions have increased global energy prices. And that's beneficial to Russia. And anything that bugs down the United States and prevents it from pivoting to focus on China is beneficial to China, even though China, unlike Russia, doesn't benefit from high oil prices. But overall, there is no one who's standing by Iran and its non-state allies have been really decimated and are on their back foot as a result of Israel decapitating Hezbollah, degrading Hamas and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. Sam Hawley: Yes. So the so-called axis of resistance, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, they're not in a position to actually help Iran at this point. Is that what you're saying? Ali Vaez: They are weakened. They can come to Iran's rescue to a certain extent. But the question is, when should that happen? At this stage, I think it is unlikely, especially for a group like Hezbollah, which has really been on its knees since last September, October, when Israel significantly diminished its offensive capabilities. But if Iran is facing an existential peril, then it is possible that these groups would also conclude that if the mothership goes down, that they will go down eventually as well. And they would decide as a last ditch effort aimed at survival to try to join the battle. There are still members of the axis of resistance that are standing, like the Shia militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen. But again, I think they're keeping their powder dry for now until later stages if this conflict escalates and expands. Sam Hawley: What could they do if that does happen? Ali Vaez: Well, the Houthis have demonstrated that they can reach Israel. They just targeted Ben Gurion airport about two weeks ago. They have also effectively managed to shut down free flow of trade and energy out of the Red Sea. They can target U.S. warships in and around the region. They can shut down the key waterway of Bab al-Mandab. The Hashd al-Shaabi militias in Iraq, they can target U.S. bases and U.S. diplomatic facilities in Iraq. And there's also enormous U.S. economic interests in Iraq as well in the form of investments in the energy sector. So there are still things that they can do. But again, I think the time for that has not yet arrived. Sam Hawley: And there are 30,000 U.S. troops, of course, based in the region. So a lot of U.S. bases. A big concern, of course, Ali, as well, is the Strait of Hormuz that Iran could disrupt that, disrupt the flow of oil around the world, which could have a devastating impact. What's your view? Can it actually do that? Ali Vaez: I doubt that they would actually physically block the Strait of Hormuz because that would invite a massive U.S. military intervention that would be very devastating for the Iranians. And they have options short of blocking the strait, which is exactly what the Houthis have done in the Red Sea, which is to target shipping lanes and target tankers. That in and of itself will further rattle energy markets and would externalise the cost of this conflict, which the Iranians believe is one way of putting pressure on President Trump to pull the plug on further escalation. Sam Hawley: Hmm, all right. Well, Ali, Donald Trump says Iran's nuclear sites have been obliterated, although the Pentagon says that could be too soon to say. How is the world to know how much damage has been done? How can we be sure? Because there are reports as well that the Iranians, knowing that this could be coming, moved some of the material from these sites. Ali Vaez: That is a fantastic question and in fact, the most important question, because if we are to believe Prime Minister Netanyahu's justification for the strikes, it was primarily to prevent Iran from being able to weaponise its nuclear capabilities. Now, the two main ingredients you need for that are advanced centrifuges and a stockpile of highly enriched uranium. We know that in the past four years, Iran has produced hundreds of advanced centrifuges and probably has stockpiles of advanced centrifuges somewhere in the country. The only way of knowing where the material and the machinery are is through either having boots underground, which no one is considering at this point, or inspectors. And the UN inspectors, because these nuclear sites are war zones now, have not been able to access them in the past 10 days. And I do believe that even if the war stops tomorrow, Iran is very unlikely to allow the inspectors back in. So in the process of trying to advance the cause of non-proliferation, in fact, Israel and the United States have blinded us to the ability of having oversight over Iran's nuclear program. Sam Hawley: What about this idea of regime change? Will the Iranian people rise up, do you think, against what is a brutal theocracy? Or will they really rally around the flag and the regime while they're under attack? Ali Vaez: Look, the Iranian regime is very much de-legitimised and hated within the country. It's only a very small segment of the society, maybe 10 to 15 per cent, that has, for ideological or financial reasons, still vested interest in it. But the problem is that there is no viable, unified, organised, disciplined, united alternative available to this regime inside or outside of the country. This is not like Syria in 2024, when you had a militant group ready to march into the capital and take over power. So in a scenario of regime implosion, the likeliest alternatives to the Islamic Republic is either a military takeover of the Revolutionary Guards, which I'm not sure would be any better, or the possibility of civil strife. Iran has the same fault lines that exist in countries in the region that have descended into internal conflict, like Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon. And the Islamic Republic has mistreated Iranian minorities, ethnic and sectarian, more than other segments of the society. So the risks of that kind of instability is very high. And I do believe that even if Israel thinks that destabilising a country of 90 million is in its short-term interest, that is not something that is in the medium to long-term interest of anyone, including the United States. Sam Hawley: All right, well Ali, in your mind, Iran has three options here, fold, check or raise. Which one do you think they'll go for at this point? Ali Vaez: So I don't think surrendering is really an option, because I think the only thing that the Iranian regime sees as more perilous than suffering from Israeli and American bombs is surrendering to American terms, because then that would basically signal that this is a regime that is on the ropes and there's no reason for the US to throw it a lifeline or try to give it sanctions relief and rescue it. They would actually ask for more and they would push it over the edge. Now, the option of having some sort of controlled escalation, response, retaliation against the US, maybe sequentially after the war with Israel has ended or they have reached a balance of devastation with Israel, I think is probably their option of choice. But it is also possible that they would double down either by trying to dash towards nuclear weapons, and as I said, that pathway is still open to them, or that they would try to put the entire region ablaze as means of deterring the US and Israel from going any further. Sam Hawley: Ali Vaez is the director of the Iran Project at International Crisis Group. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Adair Sheppard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.

ABC News

4 hours ago

• ABC News

Can the US Air Force bust Matt's studio bunker?

The United States has dropped some very large bombs on Iran, inserting itself into what we are currently calling the Israel-Iran War, despite Donald Trump saying just days earlier that he was going to spend two weeks thinking about it. The bombs they dropped managed to destroy or at least severely damage a nuclear facility buried 90 metres underground. Which kind of makes Matt's studio basement bunker superfluous. So what's next? Matt is joined by Emma Shortis, Director of the Australia Institute's International and Security Affairs Program and host of podcast and book After America to chat about what this means for the Middle East, and whether Australia will get pulled into the conflict. Follow If You're Listening on the ABC Listen app.

Perth Now

4 hours ago

• Perth Now

JK Rowling clarifies her involvement in HBO's Harry Potter series amid anti-trans controversy

JK Rowling "worked closely" with the writers of the HBO Harry Potter series. The writer of the original wizarding franchise has clarified that she did not write the forthcoming spin-off series, but she did assist the team. She posted to X: 'I read the first two episodes of the forthcoming HBO Harry Potter series and they are SO, SO, SO GOOD!' When as follower asked if she penned the series, she replied: "No, but I've worked closely with the extremely talented writers.' HBO chief Casey Bloys already claimed Rowling's own views - including her controversial anti-trans statements - won't influence the new show. He told The Town with Matthew Belloni podcast: 'The decision to be in business with J.K. Rowling is not new for us. 'We've been in business for 25 years. We already have a show on HBO from her called C.B. Strike that we do with the BBC. 'It's pretty clear that those are her personal, political views. She's entitled to them. Harry Potter is not secretly being infused with anything. If you want to debate her, you can go on Twitter." Bloys insisted the focus is on "what's on the screen", rather than any opinions away from the story. He added: "Our priority is what's on the screen. Obviously, the 'Harry Potter' story is incredibly affirmative and positive and about love and self-acceptance. That's our priority — what's on screen.' Rowling also previously insisted she won't fire Paapa Essiedu from Harry Potter over his support for the trans community. The 35-year-old actor - who is set to play Severus Snape in the adaptation - was among more than 400 actors who signed their name on a petition which called for the UK's entertainment industry to provide protection for transgender people following the Supreme Court's ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex. Responding to an article pondering whether she'd remove him from the show over his views, she wrote on X: "I don't have the power to sack an actor from the series, and I wouldn't exercise it if I did. "I don't believe in taking away people's jobs or livelihoods because they hold legally protected beliefs that differ from mine.' Rowling has been vocally anti-trans, and supported the Supreme Court's ruling. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson - who played Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger in the original film franchise - have all spoken out in support of trans people.