Queensland Magistrate Finds Fire Ant Activist Guilty of Obstruction

Trevor Hold was found guilty of two counts of obstructing government officers in Ipswich on Thursday. The verdict marks the first known instance of such a conviction in Queensland related to the fire ant eradication program. Hold, who leads the Australian Advocacy Group, was fined 1,500 dollars. A conviction was not entered on his criminal record.

The legal battle stems from an incident on 16 April at Hold’s property in Adare, a town in the Lockyer Valley west of Brisbane. The land was inside a designated treatment zone and scheduled for its annual inspection. Program officers arrived around 9:20 am to begin work. Hold had received advance notice of their visit.

A small group of supporters gathered at the scene to film and shout at the officials. Magistrate Leanne Scoines described the atmosphere as increasingly rowdy and crowded. Hold initially refused to open a gate for police, leading to his arrest after about 40 minutes. He was released but taken into custody again after a second interaction with program officers.

Hold’s defense relied on the Queensland Biosecurity Act. The legislation requires landholders to allow officers access to treat fire ants, a declared priority pest. Hold argued that a specific provision in the act allowed him to refuse entry if he had a reasonable excuse. He claimed the commonwealth-funded program was not properly authorized under the law.

Magistrate Scoines rejected all three of Hold’s main arguments. She noted that body-worn camera footage showed Hold telling officers three times that it was the Trevor Hold show. A police prosecutor stated it was clear Hold was enjoying the situation. Scoines said she was not satisfied that Hold was a credible witness on the critical issues.

Through his solicitor, Beatrice Ludwig, Hold argued that police failed to consider his reasonable excuse. He pointed to emails sent to the Department of Primary Industries in December 2024 and January 2025. Scoines called these notices unilateral documents seeking tacit approval by non-response. She ruled they had no legal effect.

Hold has appealed the judgment to the district court. His website currently lists fundraising efforts for his legal defense and mentions a potential class action lawsuit against the program. Professor David Heilpern of Southern Cross University compared some of Hold’s arguments to those used in sovereign citizen cases. Heilpern noted that under biosecurity legislation, a landholder’s consent is immaterial. Hold declined to comment on the case.