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 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 respectively to a number of leading members of the state’s legal profession which falsely claimed the lawyer engaged in unethical and illegal conduct.

The emails caused the lawyer reputational damage and mental anguish, although there was no evidence of actual economic loss.

The judge ultimately ordered that the trio pay $160,000 in damages plus legal costs to the lawyer (the latter of which are likely to exceed the damages ordered), and that they cease to publish any further 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 which purported to commence legal proceedings against the lawyer in what they described as, ‘Common Law Court’.

The purported claim contained imputations which were similar to those in respect of which damage were awarded against the,, 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 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 – meaning there is no maximum penalty in the Supreme Court.

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

Egg-shell skull rule

Some of the view that a lawyer is ‘fair game’ – in other words, that he or she should have a ‘thick skin’ and accusing them of unethical, improper or illegal conduct is part and parcel of their job.

There is also an argument that those who are not familiar with the law may be unaware of what constitutes unethical or unlawful conduct, and should therefore be immune from defamation proceedings.

Indeed, if the respondents had knowledge of the law their conduct may have been seen as even more egregious than it was.

However, the ‘egg-shell skull rule’ posits that a person claiming to be aggrieved must be taken as they are when it comes to determining the extent of any damages – regardless of their subjective (personal) circumstances.

In the case brought by lawyer Laura Michelmore, the court found that she was indeed mentally affected by the allegations made by the trio of sovereign citizens against her, both in terms of her mental state and perceived reputational harm – even though the allegations were made by persons of limited legal understanding – and that the fact she is a lawyer is inconsequential.

That said, any similar untrue attack made by a person not clouded by such misunderstandings on a  member of the legal community could be considered as even more serious.

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.