In R v Ryan [2024] NSWDC 476 the Court considered offences by a self-identified sovereign citizen.
The judgment states
The offender, Peter James Ryan, entered pleas of guilty at Coonamble Local Court on 19 March 2024 to two offences: the offence of Discharge Firearm with intent to resist arrest (sequence 4) pursuant to s33A(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900; and Possess Prohibited Firearm (.22 calibre self-loading rifle) (sequence 7) pursuant to s7(1) Firearms Act 1996. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is 25 years and 14 years imprisonment, with standard non-parole periods of 9 years and 4 years respectively. When sentencing on sequence 7, the offender also asks that a further two offences be taken into account on a Form 1; being two offences of Possess unauthorised firearm pursuant to s7A(1) Firearms Act 1996. If for sentence, the maximum penalty would have been 5 years imprisonment.
The details of each of these offences, including those listed on the Form 1, are contained in the agreed facts. I have read the full facts and recite key parts. The offending relates to events which unfolded at the offender’s Binnaway property between the offender and police on 2 November 2022. Following attempts to arrest the offender in relation to a matter of intimidation, the offender, whose home was signposted with a plaque declaring it to be “sovereign land”, refused to leave his home and ordered police off his property. The offender stated, “You’re on sovereign ground, you will be neutralised if you fucking hurt me, or try and do anything to me”. When queried as to what he meant by “neutralised” the offender responded, “what the fuck do you think it means”. A twelve-hour siege ensued, during which police negotiators attended to attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. The police had been informed by a friend of the offender that the offender owned firearms. At about 6.30pm the standoff came to a head when four police officers approached the home, with Senior Constable Legge holding a ballistic shield and the other three officers, Senior Constable Churchill, Leading Senior Constable Tomlinson and Senior Constable Brownlee behind him and the shield. They approached the doorway and turned off the power. The offender said, “don’t do it”. From inside the house, the offender shot at police. The ballistic shield was struck causing a small hole roughly in the middle of the shield and a dent and knocking Senior Constable Legge backwards. This conduct supports the principal charge.
Negotiations continued for a further hour and a half and thereafter the offender exited the property into Police custody. The offender commented “It didn’t have to come to all of this. It was just a comment that everyone makes” and then he referred to having a mental breakdown and it being the anniversary of his son’s death. A search of the home was conducted, during which police located three firearms and rounds of ammunition. Each of the firearms had been rendered safe by the offender. The offender did not hold a licence or permit to possess firearms.
A .22 long rifle, being a prohibited firearm, supports the offence for sentence. A .303 bolt-action rifle and a .410 single shot shotgun support the offences on the Form 1. The damage to the ballistic shield was consistent with having been caused by the .303 rifle. ...
The offender’s first adult criminal offending occurred when he was 35 in 1999 and involved personal violence and firearm offences. He has further offending, mostly involving personal violence and firearms. The most serious penalty imposed was a conditional release order in 2021. The possession of unauthorised firearms is of concern given his similar possession for the index offending. He is a person who does not comply with the requirement to be licensed. A submission was made that the risk for further offending was limited as he would not be able to secure a licence and would be subject to a Firearms Prohibition Order. This would ensure he was under scrutiny for firearm possession but could not of itself ensure an inability to access firearms if required. His record, given the nature of previous offending and the association to the index offending, does not entitle him to leniency.
I observe the offender has not offended whilst on remand. There are no disciplinary violations. This is of particular note given the extended remand period of 23 months.
... The diagnosis proffered is one of PTSD and prolonged grief disorder. Both are said to have been occasioned after the death of his son.
Just less than a year before the offending the offender’s son committed suicide. Prior to his death his son had been engaged with government agencies regarding access to his daughter. This further fostered in the offender a distrust of the government. The offender already distrusted the government due to the COVID requirements and other irrational beliefs.
Some of his irrational beliefs concerned a belief persons intended to poison or kill him. He was involved in a long-standing dispute with his Local Council about rates and his inability to attend in person due to being unvaccinated.
The offender identified as a sovereign citizen from 2020. This informs the plaque on his gate. However, he adhered to the customs of the Court, and he recognised the right of the Court to sentence.
By the time the police attended, to attend to a legitimate arrest, the offender was socially isolated and suffering mental health issues. The case notes, tendered by both the prosecution and the defence, contain an insight into his disturbed thought processes. The indicia of disorder presents as diminishing with time. In the tendered psychological report, it is stated that he retains little interest in social interactions.
The earlier case notes include an opinion of paranoia and persecutory beliefs and a delusional disorder. Most of the beliefs are focussed on the government. In June 2023 he still referred to his intention to neutralise the authorities if they entered his land: Exhibit D, p3. By July 2023 a doctor excluded delusional disorder. The doctor noted continued sovereign beliefs were not delusional.
... The defence submitted the offender’s mental health has a direct bearing upon his moral culpability. It is submitted the operating factors include the contemporaneity to the death of his son, the circumstances surrounding and informing his distrust of government, his sovereign citizen beliefs and that he felt threatened when police attended including a belief the police would kill him and was in a heightened emotional state. It is further submitted that the trauma and grief, the distrust and paranoia and the social isolation inform the offending. In combination, these are said to lessen the offender’s moral culpability. I accept that his mental health issues were operating at the time of the offending and inform his conduct on the day leading up to his offending. I accept they operate to moderate his moral culpability.
... General deterrence is of significance when sentencing for any firearm offence and more so one involving a weapon being discharged. Of even greater significance is when the offence involves that firearm being discharged at a member of the Police Service.
The offender still maintains his sovereign beliefs. I accept the submission advanced on his behalf that it is non-mainstream but not akin to a terrorist organisation. It is however a belief system that caused issues for the offender in his interaction with others and endorsed irrational thoughts. The offender has not demonstrated remorse or real insight into his offending and what precipitated it. I consider personal deterrence has a continuing role to play.
In PH v State of South Australia [2024] SASC 113 concerning a writ of certiorari setting aside the decision of the Parole Board that PH be liable to serve the balance of his term of imprisonment the Court states.
... On 22 November 2022, the applicant was sentenced to two years and four months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 months for four firearms offences. ...
On 16 September 2021, police entered and searched a property at Lonsdale. The property was owned by a company of which, at that time, the applicant was the director, secretary and shareholder. The property comprised of 12 acres and a number of transportable homes, shipping containers and an Atco transportable hut were located on it. The applicant lived in the Atco transportable hut. In the applicant’s bedroom, inside a piano, police located various firearms and ammunition. At that time the applicant did not hold a firearms licence and the firearms were unregistered.
Although the applicant pleaded guilty, there was a factual dispute about how and when the firearms and ammunition came to be located inside of the piano. The applicant gave evidence and the sentencing Judge rejected the applicant’s account.
At the time of sentencing, the Judge discussed the applicant’s affiliation with a group called the Commonwealth Justice Assembly. He said:[2] You are what could be called the leader of a group known as the Commonwealth Justice Assembly which promotes a sovereign citizen ideology. The property on which the firearms and ammunition were located was used as the Assembly headquarters. The Assembly has a large number of members and you say up to about 100 people attend at the Lonsdale property for meetings each weekend. ...
... On 27/05/23 [the applicant] attended Christies Beach Police Station to report a breach of Intervention Order by [JM] (associate of Commonwealth Justice Assembly). [The applicant] has provided a signed affidavit to Police stating on 27/05/23 he attended the immediate vicinity of [the Lonsdale Property] (which is the former meeting place for Commonwealth Justice Assembly and residential address of [JM]) in order to serve an illegitimate summons which he had created and is not legally binding. [The applicant] was allegedly approached and threatened by [JM] in the street, which [the applicant] reports is in breach of an active Intervention Order. [The applicant] had earlier contacted the police call centre and requested a Standby breach of Peace to serve the summons at this address. It has since been established this ‘summons’ is illegitimate and would have amounted to an unnecessary waste of Police resources.
[The applicant] attempts to serve an illegitimate summons are deliberately provocative and may amount to a breach of his parole, by failing to keep the peace towards any person.
[The applicant’s] attendance in the immediate vicinity of [the Lonsdale Property] which is occupied by [JM] and former meeting place for Commonwealth Justice Assembly which is frequented by members/associates. This also may amount to a breach in respect to attempting to contacting any member or associate, given his intent to serve an illegitimate summons and the interaction he had with [JM].
... On 7 June 2023, the Parole Board noted the submissions that they had received to date and resolved that the applicant was to remain in custody awaiting an interview on 18 July 2023.
The applicant was interviewed by the Parole Board on 1 August 2023. Mr Mercer was present via AVL for the interview. A number of topics were canvassed in the interview. These included:
The applicant’s diabetes and the medical reasons that prevented him from providing a urine sample.
The background to and reason for the applicant attending at the Lonsdale address.
The circumstances in which the applicant came to be in contact with JM.
The applicant’s denials that he in any way wanted to contact JM.
The suggestion that for many years the police have had concerns that the applicant holds an anti-government and anti-law enforcement attitude which has resulted in him stockpiling firearms and ammunition (which was denied by the applicant).
The applicant’s plan to try and create 100 jobs in South Australia.
The applicant’s civil action in the Magistrates Court.
Whether the applicant has had any psychiatric or psychological treatment.
Suggestions made by the Presiding Member that some of the applicant’s belief system were not based in reality and the issues that this may pose for the applicant moving on into the future.
The circumstances of the firearms offences, about which the applicant maintained the version rejected by the sentencing Judge.
The applicant’s previous involvement in the Commonwealth Justice Assembly and the role of that group.
The suggestion by the Presiding Member that the applicant had not been engaging with his Community Corrections Officer.
As a result of the interview, the Parole Board raised concerns with respect to the applicant’s mental health. On 2 August 2023, the Parole Board determined that prior to making a determination on the breaches, they would require a psychiatric assessment of the applicant and his level of risk if released into the community.?
... It is apparent from the various materials before me, that one of the applicant’s greatest criminogenic risk factors is his ongoing involvement in, or association with, the Commonwealth Justice Assembly. It was in the context of his role in that organisation that the applicant had committed the firearms offences.
In 2020, the applicant was diagnosed with Persistent Delusional Disorder. His involvement with Community Mental Health Services came about after he wrote several letters to Parliament. At that time, the applicant displayed delusional conspiracy theories, including alleging that the legal system was corrupt as it was run by Freemasons.
In addition, the applicant has a history of being hostile, irritable and belligerent to mental health clinicians and the police.
In a Parole Board Report prepared in January 2023 it was observed:
Furthermore, [the applicant] is widely considered a cult-type leader expressing his sovereign citizen ’s beliefs. [The applicant] appears to not be a violent person but has demonstrated the ability to groom and manipulate people. In prison, there were concerns that he was attempting to recruit prison staff to his political organisation at the Adelaide Remand Centre. Furthermore, [the applicant] described himself as an influential person in prison, assisting other prisoners in writing submissions to the Parole Board and making legal challenges within the court system.
Against that backdrop it was previously reported that the applicant was the leader of the Commonwealth Justice Assembly which, at its height, boasted over 2,000 members. The Commonwealth Justice Assembly was known to promote sovereign citizen ideology. The applicant told DCS authorities that he wanted to return to the political party when released from prison. He denied that it was a cult or terrorist organisation, suggesting instead that it was committed to obtaining justice for all Australians.
In interviewing the applicant for the December 2023 psychiatric report, Dr Jesudason raised the topic of the applicant’s involvement in the Commonwealth Justice Assembly. The applicant described them as a community based group who “try to help people out with justice matters”. Dr Jesudason described the applicant as becoming evasive when asked about the ethos of the group and who their founding members were. The applicant acknowledged that the group would meet regularly on his Lonsdale property and that he did not charge money for his services. The applicant claimed that at one point there were 9,000 members but said that it had closed down since he was imprisoned.
Dr Jesudason expressed the view that the applicant appeared to underplay his belief system however “there was evidence of ongoing fixed beliefs around a political organisation he likely founded (CJA) as well as beliefs surrounding the management of his legal status that fall into the realm of previously documented anti-government/anti-authoritarian views”.
Dr Jesudason identified a number of matters that complicated the applicant’s situation. She said:
What complicates [the applicant’s] case is that his delusional belief systems can be increasingly interpreted as cultural norms, given the current political context. Indeed, [the applicant] has had mental health assessments where members of the CJA have been present and behaved in a similar manner as him, to the same clinicians.
