'Sovereign citizens' sentenced to prison term in Western Australia for defiance of court order
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Supreme court rules impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte is unconstitutional
Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte has scored a big legal win after the country's Supreme Court struck down an impeachment complaint against her, ruling that it was unconstitutional. The lower house of Congress had impeached Ms Duterte in February, accusing her of misusing public funds, amassing unusual wealth and threatening to kill Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, the First Lady, and the House Speaker. The court said it was not absolving Ms Duterte of the charges, but the ruling may nevertheless be a huge boost for her political ambitions. She is widely seen as a strong contender for the 2028 presidency, which Mr Marcos cannot contest due to a single-term limit for Philippine presidents, but an impeachment trial conviction would have seen her banned from office for life. Ms Duterte has said the move to impeach her, which came amid a bitter feud with Mr Marcos, was politically motivated. "This unanimous decision has once again upheld the rule of law and reinforced the constitutional limits against abuse of the impeachment process," her lawyers said in a statement. Ms Duterte is the daughter of firebrand former President Rodrigo Duterte, who is now in the custody of the International Criminal Court over his bloody war on drugs. He has denied wrongdoing. In a unanimous decision, the country's top court agreed with Ms Duterte's contention that Congress violated a constitutional safeguard against more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a year. More than 200 members of the lower house had endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint to the Senate, having not acted on the first three filings. "The articles of impeachment, which was the fourth complaint, violated the one year period ban because there were three complaints that came ahead of it," Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting told a media briefing. As a result, the Senate then did not have the authority to convene an impeachment tribunal, the court added. Mr Marcos has distanced himself from the proceedings against his estranged Vice President, saying the government's executive branch cannot intervene in the matter. His office said on Friday the court's decision must be respected. A spokesperson for the Senate said the upper chamber was duty-bound to respect the court's ruling. There was no immediate comment from members of the House prosecution panel, but a spokesperson for the lower house said that while it respects the court "its constitutional duty to uphold truth and accountability does not end here". The Supreme Court said a fresh complaint could be filed against Ms Duterte once the ban expires. "We remain prepared to address the allegations at the proper time and before the appropriate forum," Ms Duterte's lawyers said. Reuters
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Geraldine Doogue takes on the future of journalism in 2025 Andrew Olle lecture
This is an edited version of the 28th annual televised Andrew Olle Media Lecture delivered by ABC journalist Geraldine Doogue in Sydney on Friday, July 25. What a year to be delivering the lecture on the media of the future — or on any subject that requires some certainties or good prophecy — because nothing seems certain in our lives. For quite a while after the invitation to present the 2025 Andrew Olle Media Lecture arrived, I'd settled on those immortal WB Yeats lines as my title: "The centre cannot hold … The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Yes, those words certainly describe our times. But it just felt too defensive and grim, and I didn't want to leave you all like that. So I settled on "Not Drowning, Waving" as my title, which somehow seemed more apt, with a touch of irony. It is all a bit grim: no doubt about it for those of us who love the media, love working inside it, consuming it, believing it's vital to our way of life. Roy Greenslade, the UK media analyst, was pretty blunt back in 2016 when he said: "It is time to recognise that the whole UK newspaper industry is heading for a cliff fall, that tipping point when there is no hope of a reversal of fortune." The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford has been forensically examining this. Prospect magazine headlined their coverage of the institute's latest report with: "Journalism is in freefall — and the public doesn't care". That rider has stayed with me. "The public doesn't miss yesterday's news, but journalists miss the public," writes the article's author, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. As he explains, current trends suggest at best a continued retreat, as the press serves fewer people. It may ultimately end up with a role akin to contemporary art or classical music: highly valued by a privileged few, regarded with indifference by the many. That's our existential crisis, though the fine print of the Reuters research does indicate that the public, in theory, is still with us. It's just that other options loom as better. An article by 360 Info, an outlet that bills itself as "Research Reuters", argues that media players are involved in a war of attention, competing against outlets whose stock-in-trade is harnessing rage and anger. Of course, it is also true that media consumers have become our competitors by creating their own bespoke news outlets — a great irony. "Scare stories about the problems associated with digital media will not bring people back to news," Nielsen writes. "A wiser course of action might be to impress people, rather than try to depress them. "The people best positioned to forge a different path are those journalists and publishers who accept that the next step is to meet people where they are. The aim should not be to take journalism backwards, but to create something new." But what would that look and sound like? Christopher Clark, a professor of modern history at Cambridge University, recently wrote an essay called "The End of Modernity". "A crisis is unfolding before our eyes — and also in our heads," its subtitle read. Before the modern age, people obtained information "from individuals, by word of mouth". With the advent of the modern media industry, "rumour-mongers gave way to trained journalists". The media of the modern era, he writes, "created its own mythology, a story we could tell ourselves, a means of situating ourselves in time, of understanding where we came from and where we were heading". But this modern system, Professor Clark says, is disintegrating before our eyes. "The multi-faceted nature of contemporary politics, the present of turmoil and change without a clear sense of direction, is causing enormous uncertainty," he writes. "It helps explain why we are so easily unsettled by the agitations of the present and why we find it so difficult to plot our course." Maybe, he wonders, there's a general reversal taking place. The gossip-mongers of the internet have once again seized the initiative, leading to the fragmentation of knowledge and opinions. "It has never been so difficult to think calmly," Professor Clark writes. And yet, how necessary it is. Perhaps our journalistic egos have become wrapped up in hitting the headlines ourselves. Who among us can honestly say we were impervious to the Woodward-Bernstein achievements around Watergate? Two young bloods, nobly jousting with the deeply flawed Richard Nixon and his establishment and bringing him down. Journalistic nobility, then super-stardom! We media workers will always have a duty to warn citizens of danger and incompetence, alert them to what's not solved, why today might be different from yesterday: the classic role of the fourth estate. However, I do wonder whether the breadth of the community and its range of tastes and interests are sufficiently canvassed, and whether we're more energised by displaying incompetence rather than searching for competence. The latter could be a real service, though it may not yield that fabulous rush of revelation and schadenfreude. I have long believed that reporting achievements makes for a very good first paragraph. It might in fact persuade doubters that we really are interested in the wider community, not just overturning governments or winning a scalp. Mathias Döpfner, head of German media group Alex Springer, believes one of the reasons people are losing trust in the media is because many confuse "journalism for activism". "More and more young people want to become journalists because they want to improve the world," he told The Sunday Times. "I think that's a dangerous misunderstanding of journalism." In this communitarian model I'm reflecting on, I see a renewal of the covenant between the public and the journalist, of clearly making the effort to be fair and accurate. We're not there to tell people about the comfortable status quo. To some extent, we are there to bother them, to introduce some alert and alarm. And no, we can't guarantee we'll be fully objective, but we can observably try, and be seen to be doing so or judged for not. The public can draw its own conclusions. Intellectual openness is, for me, the glittering prize. That's what I look for in colleagues. And I suspect the public does too. This all dovetails with other, bigger needs within the culture. I would argue that we might well have reached peak-individualism, a sociological urge that manifests in all those solitary searches on the net for some bliss — maybe sometimes found. And yet so many of them are seeking ways to avoid loneliness, separateness or alienation. I don't think we thrive on individualism. We're all looking for green shoots: that's the truth of it. After all, the BBC had to invent all those looks and props and sounds around news presentation, which we simply take for granted now. Moving past individual gossip to something more formal involved massive creativity. We clearly need it again. And to my mind, we need to lionise creativity and service beyond individual achievement to routinely engage lots more people, more regularly. Otherwise, we simply won't have an industry at scale. It won't be prosperous enough to offer careers or cadetships to young people. All sorts of people will end up as artists working in garrets, rationing their time and money, occasionally striking it rich, mostly doing something else. That's no answer. I haven't talked about AI, or the innards of dis- or misinformation. I can't even give you specific new models of this communitarian emphasis I'm discussing. I wish I could. But if we're passive, we might lose this gem of ours, this buoy of modernity. We might lose this industry that I adored from day one, back in 1972, when I wandered up the corridor of Newspaper House at 125 St Georges Terrace, Perth, on a hot January day and said, "Is there a way in, I wonder?" Thank goodness they said yes.
West Australian
4 hours ago
- West Australian
Australia, UK solidify AUKUS deal as Pentagon review raised at high-level Australia-UK talks in Sydney
Despite fears the Trump administration could abandon AUKUS, Australia and the UK have pressed ahead, preparing to sign a 50-year agreement they hope will cement the submarine pact. Defence Minister Richard Marles, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, and their UK counterparts John Healey and David Lammy unveiled the new treaty during the annual AUSMIN meeting in Sydney. The Pentagon's review of the trilateral submarine plan had been raised during the high-level talks on Friday, Mr Marles said. Both defence ministers sought to ease concerns, welcoming the still-ongoing review, with Mr Marles cushioning it as 'the most natural thing in the world' for a new government to reassess such a major deal. 'We've welcomed the review, which is being undertaken by the Trump administration. We spoke today about how both of us — both countries — can contribute to the review,' he said. 'When we came to Government back in 2022, we undertook the Defence Strategic Review. When the UK Government came to power, they, in turn, undertook a review. This is a very, very natural step.' Australia had spearheaded the AUKUS pact in 2021 under then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison, after recognising the country needed to rapidly upgrade its defence capabilities. Labor then agreed to continue it. But Mr Trump's return to the White House in January has sparked new doubts over the pricey pact, as Washington slaps controversial tariffs on multiple countries, including close allies UK and Australia. Australia has also been pressured to increase defence spending in line with the NATO agreement for governments to raise their expenditure to 5 per cent of their country's GDP by 2034. While Australia currently spends about two per cent of its GDP on defence — on track to rise slightly above 2.3 per cent by the end of the decade — Washington has signalled that may not be enough. The UK's increase to 2.5 per cent of GDP by the end of the decade, equivalent to an extra £75 billion, was announced at last month's NATO summit and welcomed by US officials. The Coalition welcomed the UK-Australia treaty but called for defence spending to be increased, urging the Albanese Government to show greater commitment to the US. 'The Albanese Government must urgently demonstrate the same clarity and commitment with the United States,' a joint statement by shadow ministers Michaelia Cash and Angus Taylor said: 'Particularly in light of the Pentagon review, to reassure our partners that Australia can deliver on its contributions and, in turn, secure continued US backing for the agreement. 'Australia must do what we can to ensure AUKUS' longevity and success.' 'At a time of rising global instability, sustained underfunding risks weakening Australia's deterrence and damaging trust in our alliances,' they said. 'The Government must match its rhetoric with investment, and we stand ready to support a bipartisan pathway to deliver the capabilities our nation needs.' Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Euan Graham said it could be contributing to current alliance tensions. The pressure comes ahead of summit season, where the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hopes to land his first meeting with Donald Trump. The Prime Minister has dodged questions on when he'll meet the US President after their planned G7 meeting fell through, with Opposition Leader Sussan Ley attacking the lack of progress during the first sitting of the new Parliament this week. Dr Graham said while the UK could support long-term ambitions, Australia still faced a near-term capability gap it would need the US to fill. He said Australia still had an interim reliance on US-made Virginia-class submarines — set to be acquired in the early 2030s, while waiting for the AUKUS subs to be delivered in the 2040s. 'It doesn't solve the issue of the gap between now and when those submarines start being delivered,' he said. 'That's where the American Virginia class gap-filling really comes into play.' But he reiterated that the AUKUS arrangement was a three-nation pact and can be reinforced by each side, saying if confidence dips in one party, strengthening ties with the others can help balance it out. 'This is a clear commitment from the UK to honour its side of the bargain, and I think hopefully that should steady some of the nervousness around Washington's commitment levels,' he said. Greens Senator David Shoebridge blasted the new treaty, calling it a backward step that enriches foreign arms companies and damages regional ties. 'Australia needs to look to our region, not tie our future to a dying empire a world away. All this will do is line the pockets of foreign arms companies and alienate our neighbours,' Senator Shoebridge said. But Dr Graham said Australia must pay to play, and it was necessary to offshore work because Australia lacks the technology to produce the subs on its own. 'If Australia wants capability, it has to buy it. It can't produce it itself,' he said. 'As part of that, Australia is committed to directly investing in the defence industrial base of both countries. 'That's money that's going to leave Australia and go into other countries, but those other countries are providing a service. It's like anything else.' Mr Marles expressed the importance of Australia's 'oldest relationship' with Britain amid global uncertainty and a 'great power contest' in the region. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy labelled the AUSMIN talks as ' focused and constructive' and the pact a 'landmark treaty' which was necessary in a 'turbulent world'. 'It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady,' he said. 'Whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing . . . I think we're sending a clear signal, a signal of the UK's commitment to this region of the world.' He said the UK was determined to keep the Indo-Pacific 'free and open'. Senator Wong said the relationship was rooted in shared values and interests, but it was important to 'modernise' the partnership to meet current global challenges. 'We all know we face the most challenging, strategic circumstances since World War II. More conflict, more contest, a multilateral system under strain,' Senator Wong said. 'And against that backdrop, the partnership between our nations matters even more. And we are determined to work together to modernise our partnership, to take the world as it is, but to work together to shape it for the better. 'We've had an excellent set of discussions today.' Both parties will travel to Mr Marles' Geelong electorate tomorrow, where the agreement is expected to be officially signed. Mr Marles and Ms Wong will also join their UK counterparts in Darwin on Sunday for the visit of the UK Carrier Strike Group, the first such deployment to Australia since 1997, taking place during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025.
