Activist fined $1,500 for obstructing fire ant control — The Guardian

In Australia, a magistrates’ court found activist Trevor Hold guilty on two counts of obstructing government officers who were to treat his property for fire ants. He was fined $1,500, but no conviction was recorded, The Guardian reports.

Obstruction of property treatment

The incident occurred on April 16 at about 9:20 a.m. at Hold’s property in Adare, in the Lockyer Valley west of Brisbane, Queensland. The property was within a treatment zone and was due to undergo an annual procedure as part of the fire ant control program. Hold had been notified in advance about the program workers’ visit.

According to court materials, a small group of the activist’s supporters gathered near the property, filmed the officers and shouted at them. Queensland Police detained Hold about 40 minutes after he refused to allow the gate to be opened. He was released, but was detained a second time following a further interaction with program workers and another warning.

Court rejects defence arguments

Hold argued that he had been intimidated by police officers and program workers, so he withdrew his consent to their presence. Through his lawyer, Beatrice Ludwig, he also argued that police had failed to take into account his “reasonable excuse” for refusing access.

More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.

The activist also referred separately to letters sent to the Department of Primary Industries in December 2024 and January 2025. Magistrate Lynne Skoins described them as unilateral quasi-legal documents that sought to obtain tacit approval through a lack of response, and ruled that they had no legal force.

The court also rejected Hold’s claim that the program had not been properly authorised under Queensland’s Biosecurity Act. The law requires landowners to allow authorised officers access for treatment against fire ants, which are recognised as a priority pest. Hold appealed the decision to the District Court.

Southern Cross University law professor David Heilpern compared some of the activist’s arguments, including those concerning the withdrawal of consent, to the approaches of the so-called sovereign citizen movement. According to him, an owner’s consent or lack of consent is irrelevant under biosecurity legislation.