UNCLE ROBBIE THORPE Applicant - [2025] VSCA 172

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2025 0023
S EAPCI 2024 0088
S EAPCI 2024 0091

IN THE MATTER of proposed judicial directions, on the application of UNCLE ROBBIE THORPE

UNCLE ROBBIE THORPE

Applicant

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON P and WALKER JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 July 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 172

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Filing – Power to direct Registrar to accept documents for filing – Registrar refused to accept documents for filing – Applicant sought judicial direction to Registrar to accept documents for filing – Documents were applications other than for leave to appeal – Documents sought entirely inappropriate orders that Court would not make – Applications incomplete or failed to comply with Rules – Application for direction refused.

Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 rr 9.07, 64.43.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		In person
Respondent:		Not applicable
Solicitors
Applicant:	Not applicable
Respondent:	Not applicable

---

EMERTON P
WALKER JA:

In October 2023, Uncle Robbie Thorpe (‘the applicant’) sought to file a charge sheet and summons in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria naming King Charles III as the accused and alleging that he had committed ‘continuing acts of genocide … against First Peoples’. The Magistrates’ Court refused to issue the summons and did not initiate a proceeding.
By originating motion filed in the Trial Division on 7 March 2024, the applicant sought judicial review of the Magistrates’ Court decision. A trial was conducted on 19 July 2024 and on 5 February 2025 Richards J handed down her judgment. Her Honour held that the charge sheet did not disclose an offence known to law and that the Magistrates’ Court was correct to refuse to issue the proposed proceeding.[1]
[1]Thorpe v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria [2025] VSC 22.
An application for leave to appeal from a decision of Richards J to refuse to accept an affidavit for filing was refused by McLeish JA on 2 August 2024.[2]
[2]Re Thorpe [2024] VSCA 172 (‘Thorpe No 1’).
The applicant has since filed an application for leave to appeal Richards J’s decision. He has also filed various applications other than for leave to appeal, which are voluminous and overlapping. Some of these additional applications have been accepted for filing. However, the Registrar refused to accept for filing four of the applications, pursuant to r 64.43 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (the ‘Rules’). Together these four applications seek more than 15 different orders, including orders for the joinder of additional parties, orders concerning intervenors, orders concerning the identity or racial background of the judges who are to hear his applications, and other orders concerning the conduct of the proceedings.
The applicant now seeks to have a Judge or Judges of Appeal direct the Registrar to accept for filing the four applications that were refused, pursuant to r 64.43(5) of the Rules.
For the reasons that follow, we will not direct…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading UNCLE ROBBIE THORPE Applicant

Details

AGLC: UNCLE ROBBIE THORPE Applicant [2025] VSCA 172
Case: [2025] VSCA 172
Decision Date: 16 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of UNCLE ROBBIE THORPE Applicant involved a matter before the court wherein the applicant sought direction from the court for the Registrar to accept documents for filing. The applicant's documents were applications that were not for leave to appeal, but rather sought entirely inappropriate orders that the Court would not make. The Registrar had refused to accept the documents for filing, and the applicant sought judicial direction to compel acceptance. The legal issues before the court included whether the court had the power to direct the Registrar to accept documents for filing and whether the applications were complete or complied with the rules. The court found that while it had the power to direct the Registrar to accept documents for filing, the applicant's applications were incomplete or failed to comply with the Rules. The court accordingly refused the application for direction. The court's decision was based on its interpretation of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 rr 9.07, 64.43, which set out the circumstances in which the court may direct the Registrar to accept documents for filing. The court found that the applicant's applications did not meet the requirements set out in those rules, and accordingly the Registrar's refusal to accept the documents for filing was justified. The court's decision was final, and no further orders were made.

Orders