As local councils across New Zealand carry out their statutory duties under the Building Act 2004, a growing challenge has emerged in the form of “sovereign citizens.”
These individuals typically attempt to deny the legitimacy of government authority and may attempt to frustrate compliance processes—including by refusing entry to property, rejecting compliance action, or disputing the jurisdiction of the court.
This article provides some practical guidance to councils when dealing with sovereign citizens, particularly in two key scenarios:
- refusal of entry for inspection, and
- non-compliance following enforcement action or prosecution.
Understanding Sovereign Citizens
In short, this is an anti-government movement. Sovereign citizens typically hold the belief that they are not subject to statute, and reject the authority of councils, courts, and other government agencies. In practice, in the context of local government, this may manifest as:
- Refusing to recognise council warrants or powers of entry.
- Filing pseudo-legal documents (eg “notices of trespass” against officers).
- Ignoring infringement notices.
- Denying court jurisdiction, often representing themselves with confusing paperwork or no-show behaviour.
While these actions may appear legally complex, courts in New Zealand have consistently dismissed these arguments as frivolous and without merit.
Refusal of entry: enforcement options
We have had a couple of cases recently where sovereign citizens have tried to prevent councils from entering land – both under s 222 of the Building Act (which provides that an authorised person may enter land at reasonable times for inspection) and also following a Court order being obtained enabling Council entry to a household under s 227 of the Building Act.
The good news is that if a sovereign citizen does this, and tries to be above the law, councils do have enforcement options available to them. As an example, in the recent case of Timaru District Council v Richardt, the Court described such sovereign citizen arguments as “legally unsound”, and found the defendant guilty of obstructing council officers and failing to comply with a notice to fix, convicting and fining him $18,000.
Continued non-compliance following enforcement
We have also recently had to deal with situations involving sovereign citizens who continue not to comply following a conviction and/or Court order.
One example of this is a sovereign citizen failing to remediate building work after a successful notice to fix prosecution, upholding the obligation to remediate building work.
Helpfully, there are further enforcement options here. We have recently obtained orders against sovereign citizens where the Court has granted a council an order under s 220 of the Building Act, enabling the council to carry out remedial work, given the continued non-compliance.
Key takeaways
Dealing with sovereign citizens can be highly frustrating and draining on resources. That said, in our more recent experience, it is encouraging to see that the Courts seem to be becoming less tolerant of sovereign citizen type arguments, more likely to shut them down quickly.
To ensure that councils can uphold their statutory duties, protect public safety, and ensure the integrity of the building control authority system, it will be important that the Courts to continue to assist councils carry out its functions and deter sovereign citizens from making such disruptive arguments.
In our view, Councils should be cautiously optimistic that the Courts are going to assist dealing with these difficult people who do not recognise the law – and impose suitable penalties.
If you’d like to discuss your enforcement approach or need assistance with a specific case, our Regulatory team is here to help.
