Juha Kulevi Kiskonen was a well known supporter of Steven Spiers and his theories, often making videos regarding it and publishing them on social media. He would often erupt in anger and make threats towards those not supportive of the “United Kingdom of Australia” narrative, that he will see them “hung for treason” under R v Casement 1917.
He came to police attention in September 2019 in the context of an assault charge involving a neighbour. His behaviour at Picton Local Court in October 2019 was odd in that he denied that he was the named defendant and asserted that arresting police were, by arresting him, committing crimes that should be tried in the Hague. The Magistrate determined that if he, Mr Kiskonen was not in fact the defendant, then the person who was the defendant needed to be arrested and that led to a warrant being issued. The defendant was duly arrested at Court and the proceedings continued. He failed to appear on 29 October 2019, leading to other charges. All of this led to his coming under the observation of the New South Wales Police Fixated Persons Unit which, having observed him for a period, concluded that he was “not a threat at that time”.
This changed in May 2020, after he uploaded a video on his YouTube channel threatening police officers and army personnel that they would be “held to account” if they didn’t pledge allegiance to the kingdom of Australia.
“There will be consequences for the treason, they will be hung and their necks snapped. If they continue to go against the king of Australia, they will be hanged. Not going to beat around the bush, I will get a bit of pleasure out of it.”
In late July 2020, officers from the New South Wales Police Fixated Persons Unit raided his home, and he was charged with two counts of using a carriage service to menace and harass, and two firearm related offences, and refused bail.
He was subsequently convicted of the offences and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. Before his release in July 2021, the State of New South Wales applied for an Interim Supervision Order for 28 days, with a view to obtaining an Extended Supervision Order for three years with specific conditions, pursuant to the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW).
The application was heard by Lonergan J. in State of New South Wales v Kiskonen (Preliminary)  NSWSC 915. The case goes into some detail of the United Kingdom of Australia, the ideology, and some of those associated with it, citing the observations over some time by Detective Senior Constable James Gatward of the New South Wales Police Fixated Persons Unit.
Juha Kulevi Kiskonen was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal shortly after his arrival in custody, after engaging in a hunger strike. The Psychiatry Registrar from Justice Health stated that he had been referred to the Mental Health Screening Unit in the context of “a deteriorating mental state”. Psychiatrist, Dr Keating noted “…he had a “systematised paranoid delusion that there was unlawful military occupation of Australia” and that there are “two constitutions of Australia”, and due to these beliefs he believes that police officers should be “hung for war crimes.” The Registrar concluded that the risk to others was due to his untreated mental illness, and so he was transferred to Long Bay Hospital for involuntary treatment. Dr Andrew White noted on 22 June 2021 that:
“He said that he no longer believes the things about the Australian government or other conspiracies that he previously did. He admits to becoming completely preoccupied with these beliefs and that they had taken over his life and damaged his relationships. He attributes his change in mental state to the shock of incarceration and his wife ending their relationship. Accepts his diagnosis and was able to label it as delusional disorder. Accepts that he was completely overrun by his conspiracy beliefs and accepts the label of ‘delusional’. Denied any ongoing interest in pursuing his conspiracy theories.”
Lonergan J did not accept that there is a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not kept under supervision under the order, and that as he is no longer expressing adherence to UKOA philosophy, it should be seen as, at least, some evidence of decreased risk. She notes (at 86-88):
“The calling for the curial overthrow of the government does not amount to a “terrorist act” or a calling for curial punishment. The Court should view any statement that a person or class of persons will be punished in a particular way, even by capital punishment when the law is changed, is quintessentially political advocacy no matter how offensive or uncomfortable those threatened by it might find it. The Court could find that what the defendant is advocating is not conduct in support of violent actions, but rather application of what he believes might be the result of due process of law and so it is in effect an extreme political view advocating political change, as opposed to an extremist view advocating illegal violence. The Court should take at face value the videos and statements within them that are careful not to invoke extra-curial violence, but telling listeners to be careful of what had he had seen to be the operation of law, once the matter was “before the Hague”.