How should Australia handle ‘sovereign citizens’ clogging the courts? A former magistrate explains

Imagine sitting in a crowded local court in Australia, and this happens (names have been changed):

Court officer: I call the matter of James Burnett

JB: I am the personage known by that name but do not identify for the purposes of this court.

Judge: Are you James Burnett?

JB: I am known by that name but do not identify. I challenge the jurisdiction of this court as the Queen did not personally appoint you. The Magna Carta states that I am a “freemen of our realm for ourselves” and have “distrained to do more service for a knight’s fee or for any other free tenement than is due”.

Judge: If you are not James Burnett, then I will assume that you are not in court, and will convict you of this traffic matter in your absence.

JB: You cannot do that because the Royal Coat of Arms behind you means that it is English law I must answer to.

Judge: Last chance – are you James Burnett?

JB: Only for the purpose of this discourse and not in any legal or corporate sense without the capitalisation of my name.

Judge: Do you plead guilty or not guilty to the charge of driving unregistered.

JB: I was not driving, I was journeying, and to plead would consent to the corporate entity known as Corporatus Australis.

I was the magistrate in this case, and it went on like this for 45 minutes. “James Burnett” is a so-called sovereign citizen, and cases like his are becoming more common in the courts. The group uses pseudo law – nonsense “law” that has no basis in fact– to obfuscate and frustrate judicial matters. In the process, they are clogging Australian courts, something I saw many times as a magistrate and now observe as a legal academic.

Who are sovereign citizens?

They cover a broad range of perspectives, from sophisticated to naïve, from Christian to isolationist. However, the common theme is a belief that the laws that apply to everyone else do not apply to them, because they are “sovereign”. They maintain they can remove themselves from laws relating to traffic, debts, family law and tax by a range of legal manoeuvres and reliance on ancient legal texts and principals.

Even though there have been no numeric studies, it is universally accepted this phenomenon is increasing, particularly in local courts in rural and regional areas.

Sovereign citizens became more common in Australian courts during the ructions surrounding COVID restrictions, where a growing number of people resisted or at least resented government shut-downs, and sought out fellow travellers of dissent. This is not just an Australian phenomenon – courts in the United States, New Zealand, Canada and Europe have seen similar increases.

It is important to note that nowhere in any court in Australia or in these jurisdictions overseas has any sovereign citizen argument been accepted by the courts. Every contention raised by “James Burnett”, for example, has been comprehensively and bluntly rejected at all levels.

The real problem is time

The actual James Burnett transcript runs for many more pages. In a list of 100 matters, one obstreperous sovereign citizen can throw the whole day into turmoil, disadvantaging all the other litigants, their lawyers, witnesses and victims. Sovereign citizens are always self-represented, as lawyers have strict ethical rules for putting fallacious legal arguments to the court. So, a parking ticket charge on a list day – which should take a minute or two – ends up taking, literally, hours.

The main method courts have developed is the self-explanatory “shut down and move on” technique, which I tried in James Burnett’s case.

How can this be more effectively curtailed?

In my experience there are two measures that may help reduce the problem. First, enforcement agencies should prosecute those profiteering from spreading this misinformation, such as those selling booklets and coaching on getting around the law. If I was selling dodgy shampoo, the authorities would come down hard, so it is hard to tell why these people are being given free reign. Second, there could be a trial of a rehabilitation program diverting from the courts. We have them for drug addiction, anger management and traffic offences – why not sovereign citizens?

A diversion program would not focus on changing opinions, just pointing out that maintaining this approach is doomed to failure, has never worked and will certainly lead to increased penalties and public humiliation.

The need for action is urgent – the evidence is that this movement is growing, diverting courts from their core business which is administering justice for all.