The sovereign citizen movement has once again captured national attention following the fatal shooting of fugitive cop-killer Dezi Freeman by armed police in Victoria’s north-east. Freeman, who murdered two police officers and seriously injured another in August 2025, had a history of anti-authority actions. These included attempting to prosecute the then-Premier Daniel Andrews for treason, being arrested during a protest outside a courthouse, and labelling police officers as “terrorist thugs”.
The sovereign citizen movement is an uncentralised belief system characterised by an extreme anti-authority stance. Adherents generally believe they are not subject to government jurisdiction and that laws do not apply to them.
For many years, this ideology was primarily associated with viral videos of traffic stops where individuals would refuse to provide identification to police, asserting that law enforcement had no authority over them, only to be subsequently arrested.
Long before the tragic events in Porepunkah, Freeman himself had a notable encounter with law enforcement during a traffic stop for exceeding the speed limit. Court documents reveal that when asked to produce his licence, he responded aggressively, stating, “I don’t give a s—. Leave me alone, you terrorist. Get the hell away from me and go.” Furthermore, during an appearance at Wangaratta Magistrates Court, Freeman attempted to arrest a magistrate and several police officers, declaring, “you must stand down. You’re now in my custody and under arrest. You are not free to leave.”
Freeman’s actions underscore the potential danger posed by sovereign citizen beliefs, which extend far beyond the seemingly innocuous antics seen in courtrooms or during roadside encounters. Extremists within the movement have been responsible for violent crimes both domestically and internationally. The COVID-19 pandemic, and the subsequent public backlash against lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements, has seen a significant influx of new followers into the movement.
Understanding Sovereign Citizen Beliefs
Sovereign citizens, often referred to as “SovCits,” subscribe to extreme anti-government ideologies. Their core belief is that established laws and regulations are not applicable to them. This stems from the notion that, much like a sovereign nation operates independently of other countries’ laws, an individual is sovereign and thus unbound by governmental statutes.
David Heilpern, Dean of Law at Southern Cross University, explains the spectrum of these beliefs. “On the one hand, there are those who want to challenge the law by raising old doctrine common law doctrines and concepts of sovereignty. That’s probably a positive thing,” he stated in an interview. “At the other end, there are those who simply refuse to comply with laws that apply to you and I. They see themselves as separate and different. They say they don’t consent to the jurisdiction. And by their own declaration, they’re not bound by laws.”
The specific rationale behind these beliefs varies widely, reflecting the movement’s decentralised nature. A common thread is the concept of “false governments.” One prevalent theory, known as Redemption Theory, originated in the United States. It posits that the US government became bankrupt in 1933 after abandoning the gold standard. Proponents of this theory claim the government subsequently used its citizens as collateral in international agreements, assigning each individual a monetary value stored in a secret US Treasury Department account under another’s name.
Many adherents also actively avoid entering into any form of “contract” with the government. This explains why many are apprehended for driving without a licence or vehicle registration, or for failing to provide identification and their address when stopped by police. It also accounts for the frequent use of phrases like “I do not consent” during interactions between sovereign citizens and law enforcement.
Legal Standing and Exemptions
Despite their beliefs, sovereign citizens are not exempt from the law. As Heilpern noted from his experience as a magistrate, “I was a magistrate for 22 years I saw a lot of these sovereign citizen arguments. They hold no weight whatsoever. It’s legal gobbledygook.” This means they are legally obligated to possess a driver’s licence, pay taxes, register their vehicles, and adhere to all other applicable laws.
A clear illustration of this was a 2021 case in Queensland where a sovereign citizen charged with drug offences argued that the charges did not apply to him. Judge Glen Cash delivered a scathing assessment of his arguments and those of the broader movement, stating in his decision, “Merely setting out the argument is sufficient to show it is nonsense. It is apparent that the applicant is one of a group of people who for some years have attempted, universally without success, to avoid the operation of laws with which they do not wish to comply… Recognising that the arguments presented by [such] litigants are largely incoherent, if not incomprehensible, courts have been increasingly willing to dismiss their claims summarily.” Therefore, sovereign citizens are unequivocally subject to the law.
Origins and Dangers of the Movement
The sovereign citizen movement traces its origins back to the 1970s in America, with the establishment of the anti-government group Posse Comitatus by William Porter Gale. According to the Southern Poverty Law Centre, this group had “racist and antisemitic” foundations. The movement gained traction and spread internationally, including to Australia, in the subsequent decades. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a significant catalyst, leading to a notable surge in adherents.
“It’s fair to say that one of the recalls of COVID was a disillusionment by a significant proportion of the public with government and with health, with law, with their connection with society,” Heilpern observed. “They’ve gone looking elsewhere for justification for their views of ‘these laws don’t apply to me’.”
While the movement is not inherently violent, some extremists have committed acts of violence. Mike Burgess, the Director-General of ASIO, highlighted the risks posed by sovereign extremists in his 2022 threat assessment speech. “Some of the alleged violent acts at the recent Old Parliament House protest are a case in point,” he noted. “The individuals involved were driven by a diverse range of grievances, including anti-vaccination agendas, conspiracy theories and anti-government sovereign citizen beliefs.”
Burgess is not alone in his concerns. In 2011, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Analysis Section classified “sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement,” a threat that persists today. Dr. Josh Roose, a political sociologist and Associate Professor at Deakin University, stated in 2023, “We know there’s been many cases of violence from sovereign citizens in the US including shootings of police. About 15 per cent of domestic terrorism load, according to the FBI, in the US over the last five years was sovereign citizens.”
The movement’s dangerous potential has also manifested in Australia with tragic consequences. The Wieambilla shooting in December 2022, which resulted in the ambush killings of Queensland police constables Matthew Arnold and Rachel McCrow, and neighbour Alan Dare, by Gareth, Stacey, and Nathaniel Train, has been linked to sovereign citizen ideologies. Queensland Police described it as a “religiously motivated terrorist attack” driven by extremist evangelical Christian beliefs known as premillennialism. Deputy Commissioner Tracy Linford noted that the trio’s behaviour exhibited similarities to that of sovereign citizens. Gareth Train’s online activity revealed his promotion of anti-government and anti-law enforcement sentiments.
“At that more extreme end, (the beliefs) can end up being pretty dangerous as we see in … the connections between those involved with the sovereign citizen or pseudo law movement and horrible incidents like we saw in Queensland involving police late last year,” Heilpern commented.
Notable extremist sovereign citizens from the US include Terry Nichols, an accomplice in the Oklahoma City bombing, and Jerry R. Kane Jr. and his 16-year-old son Joseph T. Kane, who killed two police officers during a traffic stop in Arkansas in 2010.
However, the movement’s activities often have a legal focus, with adherents employing specific phrases to assert their exemption from laws. They also engage in “paper terrorism,” which involves filing spurious, frivolous, and often voluminous legal documents to harass and intimidate individuals.
“They bombard big firms with pseudo-legal paperwork, file bogus legal claims, they talk about arresting the police or the governor general or storming parliament and taking over,” explained Roose. “So there’s different dimensions. It is a significant concern, as we’ve seen… up in Queensland.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has also voiced concerns regarding the movement. “(Followers of) this ideology don’t see themselves being subject to our laws and our society,” he stated. “We’ve seen people here, in Canberra as well, put forward those positions, who have demonstrated outside the parliament. It is of real concern, and ASIO have warned that this threat is very real, and that we need to be very vigilant about it.”
