Preferred office location:
Please select your nearest office location so we can show you the most relevant information.
Navigating Sovereign Citizen Claims in WA Local Government
Partner Matthew Lilly and the Commercial team discuss this important topic.
Some readers may recall the case of Leonard Casley, or ‘Prince Leonard’, the founder of the micro-nation of Hutt River Province in Western Australia’s Mid-West.
For a few days in 1977, Hutt River Province declared itself at war with Australia over a long running taxation dispute with the Australian Tax Office.
In the years preceding Hutt River’s decidedly drastic response, the Australian government’s wheat quotas, which were first introduced in 1969 to combat oversupply, were being steadily reduced. Prince Leonard, who benefited from a sizeable wheat crop, had stated that: “For 20 years before, we had been producing 13,000 acres of wheat and when we planted in ’69 we knew the 10 per cent reduction was coming … and they gave us a quota the equivalent of 100 acres.”
In protest of the new wheat quota system, Prince Leonard proclaimed on 21 April 1970 that the Hutt River Province had seceded from the state of Western Australia.
While Hutt River Province was, of course, never officially recognised as an independent nation, and Prince Leonard and his son were ultimately ordered by the Supreme Court of WA to pay some $3 million in back taxes, the symbolism of his long-running attempt at challenging the status quo has perhaps never been more potent.
Prince Leonard was in many ways a forerunner of the growing ‘sovereign citizen’ movement.
Who are sovereign citizens?
Sovereign citizens are defined as a loosely affiliated group of individuals with varying motivations but generally united in their anti-government ideology. The term has come to encompass anyone whose conspiratorial, political, financial, legal or religious beliefs lead them to form the view that no government has authority over them.
Constituents of the movement, while diverse, do appear to share a few characteristics. They are often, but not exclusively, disenfranchised older males facing financial or other legal pressures imposed on them by what they perceive as an overbearing, ‘nanny’ state.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that while some Australians have identified as some variety of sovereign citizen for decades – such as our Prince Leonard – the Australian Federal Police have observed a swelling of their numbers since the COVID pandemic, when vaccine mandates and lockdowns brought into sharp contrast the underlying skepticism many already had with government authorities.
The question of legitimacy
The sphere of influence of Local Government authorities often makes them easy, or at least readily accessible, targets for sovereign citizens and their agendas. The authority of local governments to impose rates on landowners, restrict planning proposals, and even issue parking tickets, are often contested by sovereign citizens.
In Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA (Glew), for example, the Shire of Greenough initiated a claim in the Local Court of Fremantle against the Glews for unpaid rates, penalty interest, and costs for the 2003–2004 financial year. The Glews advanced multiple constitutional arguments in their defence, including that State Parliament did not have the power to legislate for imposition of taxation (and so for council rates under section 6.32 of the Local Government Act) because taxation power was exclusive to the Commonwealth. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that as section 2 of the Constitution Act 1889 (WA) conferred ample plenary powers for this purpose.
More recently, in Branch v Victoria Park [2023] WASC (Branch), Branch was issued with a parking infringement notice by the Town of Victora Park. He challenged it and eventually, in the Supreme Court, argued that the failure of the 1974 and 1988 referenda to recognise local government within the Commonwealth Constitution meant that local governments had no lawful authority under Australian law. However, this argument was rejected by the court, which clarified that the failure of these referenda did not preclude states from legislating to establish systems of local government for the ‘peace, order, and good government’ of the state – which includes the authority to create local governments and empower them to regulate parking through local laws.
In Branch, the appellant also sought to rely on the oft-cited “strawman duality theory”; a pseudo-legal concept suggesting that a distinction exists between a physical human being and a separate legal entity, and that government authority over the physical person can be negated by revoking the legitimacy of the legal entity. As might be expected, the court dismissed this theory as fundamentally misguided and lacking any legal basis.
A special problem for country councils
Even more likely to attract the ire of sovereign citizens, it would seem, are regional and remote councils. Recent research undertaken by Associate Professor Josh Roose, a leading expert on religious and violent extremism at Deakin University, finds that, amongst other factors, typically higher levels of economic inequality in regional and rural Australia drives a disproportionate number of sovereign citizens from country areas.
Professor Roose observes that people in country Australia “often can’t even buy a house in the town they grew up in because they’ve been locked out by investors — industries have packed up and moved, farms have shut down, other forms of the economy have taken over in regional Australia.”
Comparatively under-resourced relative to the much larger metropolitan councils, regional and remote local governments are seldom as well equipped to deal with the legal challenges posed by sovereign citizens.
But similarly, nor are the sovereign citizens as well disposed to pursuing legal claims against these local governments.
Rather, sovereign citizens often present to regional local governments in the form of ‘vexatious litigants’ who bombard councils with questions or interfere with council-run events.
In Western Australia, local governments have legal recourse under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (the Act) to address vexatious litigants. This Act provides mechanisms to restrict individuals who habitually or persistently institute vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable grounds.
Indeed, in Glew, the court emphasised that the Act aims to prevent the misuse of court resources and protect individuals and entities, including local governments, from the burden of vexatious litigation.
However, the same court also noted that the decision to declare person a vexatious litigant is not taken lightly, as it restricts a fundamental right to access the courts. Therefore, a local government applicant needs to clearly establish a defendants’ litigation history as amounting to a pattern of vexatious behaviour and that they are likely to continue such conduct. This can be a resource intensive process, and naturally, a heavy burden for regional and remote councils.
Underlying causes
Professor Roose cites the lack of investment in regional communities and the inequitable access to education and wealth as key ingredients that allow these ideologies to flourish. This is to say that to a significant extent, the underlying causes of the sovereign citizen movement neither originate with, nor can be entirely resolved by, local governments.
Instead, local governments would do well to consider initiatives that acknowledge and allow for the ventilation of some of the more common frustrations experienced by their community. Establishing communication protocols that deal especially with habitual and vexatious complaints, including when recourse to legal action will be preferred, is one example. Creating and participating in regular fora where the community is invited to express their concerns and hear also from local government and other perspectives might also be beneficial, as would finding ways to directly involve community in select decision making processes.
Conclusion
Many supporters of our existing democratic and legal processes consider sovereign citizens a threat not only to the justice system, but to themselves and their communities. Some sovereign citizens have accumulated enormous legal bills, lost custody of children, and even been imprisoned for contempt of court. As a highly visible authority, it is critically important for local governments to understand these risks and take reasonable action to mitigate them.
How can HHG Legal Group help?
*The information provided in this website serves as a general guide and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on our research and experience at the time of publication. Please consult our knowledgeable legal team for any specific inquiries or advice relevant to your circumstances, as the content may not have been updated subsequently.