Pseudo law litigants believe that the laws of the land do not apply to them – and they always fail in court.
During his time as a magistrate, Southern Cross University Dean of Law Professor David Heilpern often issued warrants for the arrest of pseudo-law adherents. He explains why pseudo-law adherents are destined to fail, looking at the unusual case of ‘HZX’ in the Supreme Court of Queensland:
Instead, they claim ‘personhood’ or quote ‘international law’, corporate veils or concepts of consent. So, when the court asks “are you the defendant x” the answer is often a different name (capitalised) or other pseudo-law jargon such as “I am not the legal personhood known as X”.
So was the case when HZX appeared at court for failing to comply with bail on a murder charge. She refused to acknowledge that she was the named defendant, even though it was perfectly clear she was.
Instead, she called herself by another name and claimed self-determination and later diplomatic immunity.
The Magistrate issued a warrant for her arrest and that was later challenged in the Supreme Court.
The court found that the Magistrate had erred and distinguished some like cases in other jurisdictions.
For example, where a person refuses to come to the bar table and simply yells abuse, courts in Western Australia and South Australia found that this was not ‘appearance’ and warrants were properly issued.
The court in HZX found that if a defendant is before the court, then they have “appeared”, and concluded at [39]:
If the person is physically present before the court, at the appointed time and place, then they have “appeared” in accordance with their undertaking and have thereby surrendered into the custody of the court “for the time being”. To “appear” and “surrender into custody” does not require something more, for example, such as an acknowledgment by the person that they are the person named in the notice to appear, undertaking or bench charge sheet or the like.
The court acknowledged that conduct by HZX utilising misguided and wrongheaded interpretations of fundamental law was time wasting and difficult to manage. Nevertheless, lower courts need to manage this in a way that does not breach the rule of law.
This case, and a similar finding in Western Australia in 2023 , reinforce an important principal – the deprivation of liberty (an inevitable result of issuing a warrant) is not to be utilised unless necessary, and that where the court has information that the person before the court is the defendant, generally will be in error.
In the end, the Supreme Court granted bail and ensured that it was varied to include a variety of names for the defendant to de-escalate matters on the next appearance.
Listen to Professor Heilpern chat with students River and Amy on the SCU Buzz podcast on the topic:
Can you opt out of the legal obligation to pay your taxes or wear a seatbelt?
