Unless you live under a rock, we are confident you have seen at least one video online about a citizen being stopped by the police and refusing to provide their name, address or driver’s licence, only to have the matter escalate.
Sovereign citizens are individuals who question and reject the authority of the government, legal and tax systems, and believe that local, state and national laws do not apply. Magistrate Mark Douglas of the New South Wales Local Court states that when representing themselves in court, these individuals will go as far as stating that our Constitution is a nullity and therefore our laws are invalid. There have also been claims that council laws don’t apply and as such they don’t have to pay rates if they own the property.
Magistrate Mark Douglas continues to state that a file before His Honour may pertain to a simple parking fine, however there may be an envelope enclosing 300 pages attached to it, filled with pseudo-legal arguments challenging the jurisdiction. These sovereign citizens will request Magistrates “to read all of it” before they appear at Court. Further, His Honour states that at least 50 of his colleagues have shared these experiences, and in the last 6 months alone, there have been approximately 300 to 400 of these matters.
His Honour further states that these matters often involve charges of driving without licences, low-level speeding or parking fines, trespassing or illicit drug use. His Honour explains that these matters would usually be dealt with by way of pleading guilty or not guilty, and sovereign citizens would often plead not guilty because of their pseudo-legal argument challenges which sometimes takes three to four times longer to deal with. Additionally, His Honour states that it is a challenge to deal with the matter as these individuals will not allow room for His Honour to speak, but rather are there to explain “how the law should be”. As a result, His Honour has had to issue warnings and ultimately ask them to leave the courtroom for the safety of those in Court if they do not comply.
It is not up to the lower courts, tax and/or law enforcement agencies to decide on the invalidity of laws. It is a role reserved for the High Court alone; only the High Court can determine if a law or part of it is unconstitutional. The Constitution in itself cannot be altered by any way aside from a referendum.
We will now go back to our earlier scenario of sovereign citizens challenging the authority of law enforcement officers; earlier this year, a woman was stopped in Coffs Harbour for driving without registration. She was asked for her name and driver’s licence but refused to cooperate. She stated that she was not driving, but ‘travelling’ and stated that she was not in the officer’s jurisdiction. A few days later, another woman was pulled over in the Gold Coast and was asked by the officer for her full name, but she refused stating “I do not consent”. Both women were charged for their offences.
Many people may not realise that state legislations such as Section 175(1) of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) authorises officers to require you to state your name and address and produce your Australian driver’s licence. Section 175(2) states that a person must not refuse to comply with the abovementioned requirements of an authorised officer or state a false name or home address. Beyond this however, there is no requirement to answer any questions, and you have the right to remain silent.
As such, these women were charged for their offences because there were in breach of state legislation, and because there is no weight and legal basis for the sovereign citizen argument. Former Magistrate David Heilpern states that these sovereign citizens must abide by the laws of the country they reside in, just like everybody else. As such, these citizens are not exempt from paying rates and taxes and/or driving without abiding by road rules.
Another instance where things did not go too well for a sovereign citizen is the case of Geraldton, Western Australia resident, Mr Wayne Glew who owed council $300,000 in rates and legal costs. However, Mr Glew refused to pay the amount owing on his belief that local governments were unconstitutional because they were not written in the Constitution. In reality, state governments have the power to enact legislations which create a system of local government and councils. Mr Glew believed that because he paid for and owned the property, he should not have to pay rates. Nevertheless, Mr Glew’s property was seized as a last resort to pay of his $300,000 debt. The Mayor of Geraldton stated that seizing Mr Glew’s property was the last resort, and that it was essential for all individuals to share the costs of living in a community. Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey states that it was curious that none of these sovereign citizens ever complained that the law was invalid if it gave them benefits or advantages such as access to schools, hospitals and roads but would object to paying taxes and rates on the grounds that it was invalid.
Here at Green & Associates Solicitors, we believe that it is crucial to know and preserve your rights, but to be careful not to blindly fall into situations that could only make matters worse for yourself. Our solicitors are well-versed in the law and will be able to help you determine whether there are valid grounds for a case in your favour. Contact us on (02) 8080 7585 to arrange a consultation with one of our expert solicitors.
