Court Upholds Firearms Seizure in Sovereign Citizen Case

The West Australian Police, concerned about violent acts by ’sovereign citizens’ in the eastern states, raiding gun owners and seizing their weapons.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia in Perth on June 20, 2024. Susan Mortimer/The Epoch Times

The West Australian Court of Appeal has upheld the cancellation of a firearms licence held by a man linked by police to the sovereign citizen movement, backing the police commissioner’s decision to revoke his access to weapons.

This is the first time a court has upheld the legality of the police decision to target the anti-government movement in relation to firearms licensing.

Sovereign citizens are a loosely organised anti-government movement whose adherents often claim they are not bound by government authority, laws or taxes, which they regard as illegitimate. Some also argue there is a distinction between a person’s physical identity and a separate legal identity.

The movement has drawn increased scrutiny from police following several deadly incidents.

Last year in Victoria, Dezi Freeman shot and killed Leading Constable Neal Thompson and Senior Constable Vadim De Waart, before dying in a shoot-out with police following an extensive manhunt. He had expressed views consistent with the sovereign citizen movement.

In 2023, Nathaniel, Gareth, and Stacey Train, who were also linked to the sovereign citizen movement, though motivated more by religious extremism, ambushed and killed two police officers and an innocent bystander in rural Queensland.

Amid concerns arising from such incidents, WA Police carried out a series of raids across the Greater Perth area late last year targeting firearm owners believed to be associated with the sovereign citizen movement.

Police searched 70 addresses, seized 135 firearms, and cancelled or suspended 44 firearms licences.

One of the people raided was George Carey, who had his firearm seized and his firearms licence revoked after Police Commissioner Col Blanch ruled he was not a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence.

Carey sought judicial review of the decision shortly after the raid, but his application was dismissed.

He later applied again, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the case despite noting that an appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal would likely have been a more effective avenue.

Carey argued the decision failed to comply with procedural requirements under the Firearms Act, relied on irrelevant considerations, failed to take relevant matters into account, was unreasonable, and denied him procedural fairness.

He also claimed he was unable to hear parts of the proceedings. However, the court found there was no evidence that this was true.

Carey further argued that the decision involved a jurisdictional error, meaning the court lacked the legal authority to make it.

The court rejected those arguments, finding no procedural unfairness and upholding the decision to revoke his licence.

The court ordered Carey to pay $2,500 in costs.

Following the raids, several affected licence holders sought a meeting with Blanch. The commissioner declined, telling reporters he had “no interest” in doing so and warning police would pursue any of the group who attempted to acquire firearms through illegal means.

Blanch said owning a firearm was a privilege rather than a right, and that people who rejected the authority of the law could not be regarded as “fit and proper” licence holders under the state’s Firearms Act.

This is the first time a sovereign citizen has lost a challenge to the pre-emptive disqualification of their firearm licence. Another licence holder affected by the operation is continuing a separate challenge before the State Administrative Tribunal.

Western Australian police was contacted for comment.