Sovereign citizens and the law: the impact of pseudo law on the legal system

The use of pseudo law arguments has increased in recent years. While pseudo law existed before COVID-19, the pandemic fuelled the number of pseudo law proceedings brought before the courts. According to the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, pseudo law arguments have been made in summary prosecutions like traffic offences, through to civil proceedings. Pseudo law arguments are often used to challenge the authority of the police and the court. While some of the arguments may seem fanciful, pseudo law arguments and claims are impacting courts, judicial officers and the administration of justice.

While pseudo law arguments have appeared in different jurisdictions across Australia, they were recently considered in the District Court of New South Wales and the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

In the New South Wales decision of Higgins v R [2025] NSWDC 256 (Higgins), the Court heard an appeal against a conviction in the Local Court. The appellant was convicted and fined over two speeding fines totalling $330. During one of his court appearances, the appellant did not acknowledge his name, was disruptive during the proceedings and rejected the Court’s jurisdiction over him.

In June, the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Michelmore v Brown [No 7] [2025] WASC 247 (Michelmore) found the defendants guilty of contempt of court. The defendants explicitly rejected the court’s authority and refused to comply with the orders of the Court. The Court sentenced the defendants to 30 days imprisonment.

As Dr Joe McIntyre, Associate Professor of Law at the University of South Australia explains, sovereign citizens (also known as ‘SovCits’) fall under the broader “phenomenon of pseudo law,” he says. “What we see with pseudo law is … [an] arranged set of behaviours. The set of behaviour that we see is a use of the forms of legal reasoning and legal argumentation, not really understanding what the law is.”

McIntyre has written books on pseudo law and has undertaken research in this area. He recently conducted research into GenAI and pseudo law and explains that both are similar in the sense that while ChatGPT can make the output look “meaningful,” it lacks “substance.”

“Pseudo law is exactly the same. They have legalese, they have legal documents … reference to statutes and cases. It looks like they’re doing law but there’s no internal coherence.

“There’s no attempt at doctrinal consistency … so it looks like law, but it’s not actually law. [T]hey [pseudo law adherents] genuinely believe this and … they substitute their own beliefs and arguments for what they think is the real actual law,” he says.

According to McIntyre, there are three or four central arguments to pseudo law and the most well-known is the ‘straw man’ argument. He explains that underpinning the straw man argument is the idea that there is a distinction between the legal personality and ‘flesh and bone’ personality. “[T]hrough certain words, legal responsibilities attached to that artificial personality … can be liberated by saying certain words,” he says.

The Higgins decision is a classic example of the use of the straw man argument. McIntyre explains that typically, when people appear in court, they are required to announce their appearance and acknowledge the authority of the court. However, some pseudo law adherents attempt to use their own ‘rituals’ and refuse to follow the court procedure for formal recognition. McIntyre describes the ‘straw man trap,’ where judicial officers attempt to navigate the pseudo law arguments, gets frustrated, and try to deal with the matter in the adherent’s ‘absence.’

So far, the courts have been divided in their approach on how they deal with pseudo law adherents and the disruption they cause in court. McIntyre gives the example of Kelly v Fiander [2023] WASC 187, where the Supreme Court in Western Australia adopted a more sensible approach and proceeded with hearing the matter even if the proper processes were not followed.

The Michelmore decision is not the first where the court has been required to deal with pseudo law arguments. McIntyre explains that Western Australia has been a “hot bed” for pseudo law issues in the past five to eight years but there have been a number of cases associated with pseudo law outside the state. “[There has been] a lot of concern amongst the Supreme Court on the corrosive impact this is having on the authority of the court and recognition of the really profound, burdensome impact [it] is having on the administration of justice in the state,” he says.

McIntyre points out that Justice Solomon, who handed down the Michelmore decision, has extensive experience dealing with pseudo law arguments. “Justice Solomon has been one of the most considered and thoughtful judges writing on this for the last decade, he is very familiar with all the various tropes… and has been perhaps the most explicit in recognising that corrosive effect on us, the authority of the court,” he says.

As McIntyre explains, the defendants in the Michelmore decision belong to the Sovereign Peoples Assembly of Western Australia. “[T]hese ones are quite organised. They’ve got a little community, they have their own courts, they run their own parliaments, they pass their own judgments … it has a lot of parallels with the old micro nations concept,” he says. McIntyre believes the decision is important because it’s the first “significant” contempt proceedings against pseudo law adherents in Australia.

McIntyre says dealing with pseudo law adherents is part of a broader national judicial conversation as judicial officers try to manage courtrooms with people who are sophisticated in their disruption of proceedings. He acknowledges the impact this has on the justice system as sovereign citizens and pseudo law adherents tend to be very litigious and are often looking for a chance to use and expand on their arguments.

In 2024, McIntyre and his colleagues conducted a systemic study of pseudo law in South Australia. As part of the study, they interviewed judges and other participants in the justice system to examine the effect of pseudo law in practice. They discovered that pseudo law is changing and delaying the administration of justice. They also found that judgment times increased, in some instances, by 50 per cent. Significantly, not only was it impacting the health and wellbeing of judges and support officers, but it also led to increased costs for police and opposing parties.

In South Australia, the sheriff’s office has introduced an “ad hoc” register of pseudo law litigants which is monitored to ensure that there is additional support and security when hearings occur.

McIntyre points out while pseudo law arguments may seem nonsensical and “kooky”, there’s often a darker side. Physical and death threats have been made against judges and some of the senior judicial officers he has interviewed have told him this issue has made them want to quit and not come back. “What we’ve seen is a huge transition in the last two or three years, from being a very fringe matter … to (a situation where) we are just starting to get some really interesting scholarship in Australia … and a much better understanding of what’s happening,” he says.

While McIntyre doesn’t believe that pseudo law arguments will make it to the High Court, he believes that clarification is needed. “Everyone’s saying this is nonsense. [T]his is a socio-legal problem, not a legal doctrinal problem. These are people who misunderstand the law and are playing with our legal institutions in a way that’s causing real harm,” he says.