Amy Jane Wells: ‘Deluded’ sovereign citizen’s fight against a $183 speeding fine spectacularly backfires as she’s ordered to pay $1800 with the judge throwing out her ‘pseudolegal arguments’
A woman who used “failed and unsustainable pseudo-legal arguments” to get out of a $183 fine was ultimately ordered to pay almost ten times the amount.
Amy Jane Wells faced Judge John Allen KC in the Queensland District Court where her appeal against a speeding ticket was dismissed.
Wells had sought to have her fine rescinded on the basis of the “twelve presumptions of Roman law” – a legal argument that Judge Allen said is “commonly presented to the court by unqualified individuals, who often identify themselves as supporters of ‘sovereign citizen’ ideas’.
The Queensland driver was fined $183 after her double cab was photographed traveling at 70km/h in a 60km/h zone at Daisy Hill in Logan, west Brisbane, in March 2022.
Queensland driver Amy Jane Wells was ordered to pay $1,800 to Queensland Police after trying to use ‘sovereign citizen’ arguments to avoid a speeding fine
However, after two years of legal debate, Judge Allen ordered her to pay $1,800 in costs to Queensland Police.
The ordeal began when Wells refused to pay her fine and opted to take her case to Beenleigh Magistrates Court in January 2023.
She pleaded not guilty, citing what Judge Allen described as “baffling” bogus laws and “pseudolegal claims.”
“At the end of the day, I wonder what it all meant,” he said Courier mail reports.
The Magistrates Court ultimately found her guilty and ordered her to pay a $107 summons on top of the original fine.
However, Wells was unhappy with the outcome and appealed to the District Court – a mistake worth almost $1,000.
In her appeal, Wells wrote, “I have been ruled without my consent” and argued that “the court, myself and this case” had been defrauded.
Judge Allen noted that her appeal was “baffling and legally incoherent” and again cited “Roman law.”
Wells was fined $183 after her double cab was photographed traveling at 70km/h in a 60km/h zone at Daisy Hill in Logan, west Brisbane, in March 2022.
“While I do not pretend to fully understand the argument, I am quite convinced that it is legal nonsense and provides no possible basis for allowing an appeal against her conviction,” he wrote.
‘The other, more well-known, pseudo-legal arguments are that the appellant has not consented to the government or the legislature, or that there is no contract evidencing consent, so she is not subject to the traffic law. no grounds for appeal against conviction.’
Judge Allen rejected Wells’ appeal and ordered her to pay $1,800 to Queensland Police.
‘Her unfortunate decision to defend the charge in the Magistrates Court on the basis of such misleading ideas and to appeal the decision of the learned magistrate to this court has resulted in a modest traffic fine of $183, which amounts to more than ten times can amount to a financial burden. a lot,” he said.