What does Australian law have to say about sovereign citizens and ‘pseudolaw’?

Armed with obscure legal jargon and fringe interpretations of the law, “sovereign citizens” are continuing to test the limits of the Australian justice system’s patience and power.

A few weeks ago, two Western Australians were jailed for 30 days after defying a Supreme Court order and refusing to acknowledge the court’s authority.

Weeks earlier, former AFL footballer Warren Tredrea told the Federal Court he could not pay his legal costs to his former employer, Channel 9, because he did not believe in Australian legal tender.

And former One Nation senator Rod Culleton is currently fighting the Australian Federal Police, arguing his court-declared bankruptcy is not legally binding and therefore should not affect his federal election nomination.

These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a growing trend known as “pseudolaw”.

What is ‘pseudolaw’?

Pseudolaw describes the practice of constructing legal arguments that sound convincing but are fundamentally wrong.

It often relies on real law or cases, twisting them through bizarre or inaccurate interpretations. It looks like law, but isn’t.

Common pseudolegal arguments include:

• governments have no authority over “natural persons”
• writing a legal name in all capital letters creates a separate legal entity (a “strawman”), which is not subject to state authority
• money is not real and anything can be legal tender
• tax laws only apply to federal entities, not individuals
• “natural rights” override statutes and court-made rules.

Not one of these arguments has ever succeeded in an Australian court.

What are ‘sovereign citizens’?

Those who believe and engage in pseudolaw are sometimes termed “sovereign citizens” or “SovCits”, a label imported from the United States during the 1970s.

The sovereign citizen “movement” reached Australia in the late 1990s.

As the Australian Federal Police explain, sovereign citizens believe they are morally and legally correct, and are quite open about their beliefs and plans.

They reject government authority, refuse to comply with laws and rely on complex but false legal theories to justify their actions.

Because many social media platforms ban their content, sovereign citizens frequently communicate through encrypted messaging apps or gather in person at protests and “common law courts” – unofficial tribunals based on a distorted reading of historical legal principles. These “courts” claim to operate outside state authority and often “try” public officials, file false claims against property and carry out other pseudolegal actions with no real legal force.

They claim to be peaceful and say they are acting in “self-defence” against perceived government overreach. But a small number turn violent.

The rise of pseudolaw in Australia

In the 1970s, WA farmer Leonard Casley labelled his farm the “Hutt River Province”, then attempted to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Western Australia.

A curiosity back then, but a warning sign.

For years, fringe tax protesters and anti-government groups quietly pushed these ideas.

Then the COVID pandemic hit: lockdowns, mandates and rising distrust meant pseudolaw went more viral. Social media lit up with people claiming they weren’t subject to Australian law.

They spouted strawman theories, cited fake laws and filmed themselves refusing police orders.

Now it’s in the courts, on the streets and in online echo chambers.

It is not just noise. It is congesting the judicial system and putting people, including adherents, at risk.

A recent South Australian study highlights how pseudolaw is increasingly disrupting legal processes in that state.

The law, however, still stands, no matter what those on YouTube say.

What the ‘real’ law says

To be clear, pseudolaw looks real but isn’t; the real law is clear on many of the points raised by sovereign citizens.

For example, the federal government derives its authority to govern from the Commonwealth Constitution. This document clearly states the government has executive authority and can make laws that bind all Australians.

This includes tax laws and laws declaring Australian money as legal tender: in 2007, the Federal Court flatly rejected arguments that income tax and currency laws were invalid.

The “strawman theory” – which states someone has two personas, one of real flesh and blood and the other a separate legal personality, who is the “strawman” – has also been debunked by the courts countless times. The West Australian Supreme Court recently called it “fundamentally misguided”.

And does capitalising your name on official documents like your birth certificate or driver’s licence affect your rights? The courts have categorically said “no”.

Pseudolaw is, as one Victorian judge described it last year, nothing more than “nonsense”, “gibberish”, and “gobbledygook”.

Why sovereign citizens are a threat

While this might seem eccentric, or even harmless, pseudolaw poses real risks.

The Judicial Commission of New South Wales warns it’s not just a nuisance – it’s clogging up courts, wasting police resources and putting public officials at risk.

But the danger isn’t only to others – it is to the followers too.

Adherents lose more than arguments. Some have racked up massive legal bills fighting fines. Others have lost custody in family court or been imprisoned for ignoring court orders.

Pseudolaw is a dangerous ideology.

It is crucial all Australians recognise that pseudolaw not only threatens your credibility but can land you in hot water under the real law.