The dangerous movement forcing judges to pay for their own home security

Victoria’s judges and magistrates are concerned that the government is ignoring serious risks to their safety from “sovereign citizens” and fixated members of the public after it refused to fund a $642,000 program to install personal security systems for their protection.

Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny last week rejected advice from an independent advisory body that recommended boosting the personal security of the state’s 390 judicial officers in response to a “dramatic” increase in recorded threats and incidents.

The government says it cannot afford to underwrite the program “in the current fiscal environment”, leaving judges and magistrates to pay out of pocket for home CCTV networks and panic alarms.

The Judicial Entitlements Panel (JEP), which advises the government on the working conditions of the state’s judiciary, found that judges and magistrates are now seriously under threat from advocates of the sovereign citizen movement and a swelling number of “querulous litigants”.

The sovereign citizen movement is based on a belief system that rejects the legitimacy of the state and the judiciary. Anti-government movements have attracted increasing attention from counter-terrorism authorities and law enforcement following violent incidents involving police killer Dezi Freeman and the 2022 shootings in Wieambilla, Queensland.

“Recent shifts in the political and security landscape have impacted the personal security and safety of judicial officers and their families in and outside of the courtroom,” the panel wrote in a report for the government last year.

“Evidence indicates that risk to the personal safety and security of judicial officers is driven by the nature of the work of the judiciary, the visibility of that work to the community and the ease of access to personal information by the public.

“Reported incidents include break-ins to judicial cars and [Court Services Victoria] pool cars, attempts to ‘arrest’ judicial officers, verbal threats made in person or by telephone, threats made by letter, email, or social media, and misuse of judicial officers’ personal information.”

Multiple sources in the judiciary, who cannot be identified publicly when speaking about government policy, have said there is a palpable and growing concern about their personal safety outside court precincts and that the government is failing to take the problem seriously.

The Federal Court, in contrast, provides judges with home security assessments, cameras for members of certain court divisions and others facing threats, and a security contact that is available 24/7.

The Age has previously revealed that threats against Victoria’s judges and safety incidents involving judicial officers and their families more than doubled in 2024 and were on track to hit a record high in 2025.

Court insiders, who cannot be identified publicly speaking about security matters, said a growing number of people have been “banned” from physically entering court precincts after repeatedly exhibiting a pattern of threatening behaviour toward court staff.

Special education programs have also been set up to instruct Victorian judicial officers on how to respond to sovereign citizen tactics in the courtroom and the broader risk they may pose.

Court Services Victoria, which administers the state’s judicial system, declined to comment.

The heads of the Magistrates’, County and Supreme Courts have been petitioning the JEP to act on their security concerns since at least 2021, following the rise of anti-establishment movements during the pandemic.

In 2025, following an independent investigation, the JEP recommended the funding of a special security program because the threat was “real”.

“Data provided by local jurisdictions indicates that the security landscape for courts and their officers has changed dramatically since 2021.”

Under the proposal every judge, magistrate or registrar would qualify for a $1600 “set-up” payment to pay for CCTV cameras or panic alarms. There would be a further $1205 annual allowance to each recipient to pay for maintenance or upgrades, at a total cost of $400,000 a year.

In its official response tabled in parliament last week, the government said the “introduction of a new ongoing allowance is not justified in the current fiscal environment, in both its quantum and nature”.

Former magistrate Tony Parsons said judicial officers should not be forced to pay for their own security as a result of the work they do on behalf of the public.

“It’s just one of those costs of living in a complex society. Security needs to be given its proper place for all people who serve the public,” he said.

“It would be a sad day, if, for such a modest amount of money, security measures were not taken and something bad happened to a judicial officer.”

Setting up and running the program would cost about $1.84 million over three years.

In contrast, the 2026-27 budget pledged $1.6 million to help boost consumption of locally made beers and ciders, and $400,000 to improve the tourist perception of Porepunkah after sovereign citizen Dezi Freeman killed two police officers there last year.

A state government spokesperson said: “We will keep working with Court Services Victoria to maintain the safety of everyone who uses the courts. We are also investing nearly $11 million in this budget to maintain and upgrade court facilities – funding that can be used by CSV to upgrade security.”

The government said in its formal response to parliament that Court Services Victoria already provided “a coordinated and scalable mechanism to manage the inherent security risk to judicial officers”.

Be the first to know when major news happens. Sign up for breaking news alerts on email or turn on notifications in the app.