Couple Imprisoned for Contempt After Breaching Supreme Court Order

A married couple who reject the rules, regulations and laws that apply across society on the basis they are ‘sovereign citizens’ has been sentenced to 30 days of imprisonment after they continued to publish defamatory material about a lawyer despite having already been ordered to pay damages and legal costs for defaming the lawyer and to refrain from publishing any further such material.

Defamation

On 15 January 2025, Justice Paul Tottle of the Supreme Court of Western Australia found that three people, Adam Crown and married couple Jerald and Emma Martin, defamed their former lawyer, sole practitioner Laura Michelmore, by sending two emails on 28 and 31 July 2025 to a number of leading members of the state’s legal profession falsely claiming the lawyer attempted to pervert the course of justice and corrupted a witness.

The emails caused the lawyer reputational damage and mental anguish.

The judge ordered that the trio pay $160,000 in damages plus legal costs to the lawyer, and ordered they cease publishing defamatory materials about her.

Contempt of court

On 16 February 2025, just a month after the court order, Mr and Mrs Martin published a document titled “Statement of Claim” to 12 people associated with a group called The Sovereign Peoples Assembly of Western Australia purporting to commence legal proceedings against the lawyer in a ‘Common Law Court’.

The purported originating application contained imputations similar to those in respect of which damaged were awarded to the lawyer, and its publication was therefore in breach of the court order.

The pair published further materials to the same group on 30 March 2025 which contained similar defamatory imputations.

The lawyer then made an application for contempt of court charges to be brought against the pair.

On 18 June 2025, Justice Marcus Solomon of the Supreme Court of Western Australia found beyond reasonable doubt that the pair had indeed committed the offence of contempt of court and sentenced each to 30 days in prison.

Contempt of court charges

A person may be found in contempt of court if they engage in an act that has the tendency to interfere with or undermine the authority, performance or dignity of the court or those who participate in court proceedings.

The maximum penalty for the offence is 28 days in prison if the conduct occurs in Local or District Court proceedings, or at the discretion of the court if it relates to Supreme Court proceedings.

Examples of conduct that may amount to contempt of court including contravening a court order, protracted unruly conduct inside the courtroom and refusing to answer questions when legally required to do so.

Egg-shell skull rule

Some may think that a lawyer should have a ‘thick skin’ and that claiming they engaged in unethical, improper or illegal conduct should be taken as ‘water under the bridge’ – especially when coming from those without an understanding of how the law operates, such as ‘sovereign citizens’.

And indeed, if the respondents had been people with knowledge of the law their conduct may have been seen as even more egregious.

However, the ‘egg-shell skull rule’ posits that the subjective situations of those claiming to be aggrieved must be taken into account when determining the extent of any damages.

In the case brought by lawyer Laura Michelmore, the court found that she was indeed adversely affected by the allegations made by the trio of sovereign citizens, both in terms of her mental state and perceived reputational harm, and the fact she is a lawyer does not mean she cannot be so affected.

Indeed, an untrue attack on a lawyer that is made to other members of the legal community can be considered a very serious matter.

Damages in defamation cases

There are several factors the courts take into account when it comes to assessing damages in defamation cases, which include but are not limited to:

1. Personal and professional reputation in their industry or profession: In Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176, the court found that the damages awarded should reflect the ‘value which the law places upon reputation’, especially for those who work in fields where the public and other colleagues judge them based on their ‘honesty and integrity’,
2. Impact of defamation: Courts must consider that defamation can affect individuals or their reputations in different ways based on their personal circumstances, careers, societal positions, and psychology, and
3. Distress and mental harm: Courts must also any distress or mental harm caused by the defamation, and 

It is important to note that any intentional or reckless attempt to cause serious mental or economic harm to a person by way of a defamatory publication – whether reputational, mental or financial harm – can amount to the offence of criminal defamation, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years in prison.