R v Sweet

[2021] QDC 216

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

(respondent)

v

KYM ANTHONY SWEET

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

478/20

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial hearing

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

6 September 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

JUDGE:

Cash QC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.     The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – APPLICATION – where the applicant is charged with two offences under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – application to dismiss both charges – where the applicant submits he constitutes two separate legal entities – sovereign citizen – the straw man duality – where the applicant submits that the indictment has charged the incorrect entity – whether the charges should be dismissed due to incorrect identification of the applicant

CASES:

Barlow v The Queen (1997) 188 CLR 1, 9
Bradley v The Crown [2020] QCA 252
Meads v. Meads [2012] ABQB 571; [2013] 3 WWR 419
R v Wyles; ex-parte A-G [1977] Qd R 169, 177

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 7, s 597
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)

ARTICLES:

Netolitzky, D J, ‘A Pathogen Astride the Minds of Men: The Epidemiological History of Pseudolaw’, paper delivered at the Centre d’expertise et de formation sur les intégrismes religieux et la radicalisation symposium: ‘Sovereign Citizens in Canada’, Montreal, 3 May 2018

Netolitzky, D and Warman, R, ‘Enjoy the Silence: Pseudolaw at the Supreme Court of Canada’, 2020 57-3 Alberta Law Review 715, 740

APPEARANCES:

W M Slack for the respondent Crown, instructed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
The applicant appeared in person

1. HIS HONOUR: On 9 December 2020, an indictment was presented in the District Court at Maroochydore alleging the applicant, Kym Anthony Sweet, committed two offences contrary to the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The first allegation is that between February and August 2019, he unlawfully produced cannabis in amount exceeding 500 grams. The second allegation is that on 1 August 2019, he possessed hydroponic equipment that he had used in connection with producing cannabis.

1. The applicant now applies for these charges to be dismissed. The essence of the applicant’s argument is that he possesses two distinct personas. One the ‘real live flesh and blood man’ and the other a ‘straw man’ or ‘dummy corporation’. The former is designated in the applicant’s material as ‘Kym-Anthony:’[1] and the latter as KYM ANTHONY SWEET.[2] According to the applicant’s argument, the real person is not subject to the laws of Queensland, and the charges should be dismissed.

   [1]The significance of the colon was not made clear to me, nor have I been able to discern its meaning from other cases, mentioned below, dealing with similar claims.

   [2]Here the alleged significance of capital letters is explained by a reference to the Chicago Manual of Style, 16^th ed., at 16.89. This apparently stipulates corporations should be named using capital letters. How this is supposed to apply, or even be relevant, to the present case was not explained.

1. Merely setting out the argument…