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

1. 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.
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. For the reasons that follow, we will not direct the Registrar to accept the four documents for filing.

The applicant's various applications and supporting documents

1. As noted above, the applicant has filed an application for leave to appeal against Richards J's dismissal of his application for judicial review of the Magistrates' Court decision not to accept for filing a charge sheet and a summons (the 'principal proceeding').
2. In addition, the applicant has filed three other applications for leave to appeal:

(a) an application for leave to appeal McLeish JA's decision in Thorpe No 1, which the Registrar refused to accept for filing on the basis that the applicant has no right of appeal against that decision;[3]

(b) an application for leave to appeal from a decision of O'Meara J,[4] in relation to his Honour's failure to direct the Prothonotary to accept a writ for filing ('proceeding 0088', and the '0088 application'); and

(c) an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Richards J ruling that an originating motion submitted for filing on 16 March 2024 be refused ('proceeding 0091', and the '0091 application').[5]

1. In the principal proceeding, there are two applications that the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refused to accept for filing and that are the subject of the present application for review:

(a) an application dated 27 April 2025 ('document 495374'), seeking 13 orders (we have annexed an extract of document 495374 to these reasons, showing the 13 orders); and

(b) an application dated 28 April 2025 ('document 495610') seeking a directions hearing in the principle proceeding, to be held with a directions hearing in proceeding 0088 and proceeding 0091.

1. In proceeding 0088, there is an application dated 28 April 2025 ('document 495600') that is the subject of the present application for review. The application seeks the following orders:

(a) an order that proceeding 0088 be heard together with the principal proceeding;

(b) an order that there be a directions hearing before the President of the Court of Appeal;

(c) three orders for joinder of additional parties (the Commonwealth Attorney‑General, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain).

1. In proceeding 0091 there is an application dated 28 April 2025 ('document 495603') that is the subject of the present application for review. The application seeks the following orders:

(a) an order that proceeding 0091 be heard together with the principal proceeding;

(b) an order that there be a directions hearing before the President of the Court of Appeal;

(c) three orders for joinder of additional parties (again, the Commonwealth Attorney-General, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain).

1. On 2 May 2025 the Registrar refused to accept documents 495600, 495603 and 495610 for filing. The Registry, by email, explained the reasons for this decision as follows:

RedCrest efile ID 495610 submitted for filing in S EAPCI 2025 0023

This application other than for leave to appeal is not accepted for filing as the orders sought are not of a kind appropriate for an application other than leave to appeal. They are procedural requests relating to case management of this leave for appeal proceeding. As outlined in the Registrar's Note for civil applications and appeals and in rule 64.42 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 the Registrar makes relevant procedural orders and directions in appeal proceedings. Your request for a directions hearing in this and related proceedings is noted and will be considered.

RedCrest efile ID 495600 submitted for filing in S EAPCI 2024 0088 and efile ID 495603 submitted for filing in S EAPCI 2024 0091

These applications for a number of orders including case management requests and joinder of 3 additional parties are not currently accepted for filing. Orders 1 and 2 being sought in both applications are not of a kind appropriate for an application other than leave to appeal. The court has already received an appropriate request by email for these matters to be heard together with S EAPCI 2025 0023 and you and Aunty Alma Thorpe[[6]] will be advised of the outcome of this request in due course. Similarly to S EAPCI 2025 0023, your requests for a directions hearing are noted and will be considered.

If you wish to apply to join the proposed three parties to these proceedings, please file a Form 64B that only seeks joinder of those parties along with the required additional documents for Form 64B application other than for leave to appeal. Furthermore, rule 9.07 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 outlines the procedure for addition of a party and rule 9.07(2) says that an application shall be supported by an affidavit showing the person's interest in the questions in the proceeding or the question to be determined as between that person and any party to the proceeding. Any application for joinder should be supported by an affidavit in accordance with rule 9.07(2).

1. On 7 May 2025 the Registrar refused to accept document 495374 for filing. The Registry, by email, explained the reasons for this decision as follows:

RedCrest efile ID 495374

This application other than for leave to appeal is not accepted for filing as the majority of orders sought are not of a kind appropriate for an application other than leave to appeal. There are a number of orders sought that are procedural requests relating to case management of this leave for appeal proceeding. As outlined in the Registrar's Note for civil applications and appeals and in rule 64.42 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 the Registrar makes relevant procedural orders and directions in appeal proceedings.

If you wish to apply to join the British Prime Minister as a fifth respondent, please file a Form 64B that only relates to the joinder along with the required additional documents for Form 64B application other than for leave to appeal. Furthermore, rule 9.07 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 outlines the procedure for addition of a party and rule 9.07(2) says that an application shall be supported by an affidavit showing the person's interest in the questions in the proceeding or the question to be determined as between that person and any party to the proceeding. Any application for joinder should be supported by an affidavit in accordance with rule 9.07(2).

1. Following the refusal decisions, the Registry engaged in further correspondence with the applicant about the form of the documents. It is not necessary to set out all of that correspondence.
2. In relation to joinder, the applicant has:

(a) filed three documents that seek the joinder of the following parties to the principal proceeding:

(i) the Commonwealth Attorney-General;[7]

(ii) the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court;[8]

(iii) 'the Prime Minister of England aka "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"';[9]

(iv) the Secretary-General of the British Commonwealth of Nations;[10] and

(v) the Secretary-General of the United Nations;[11]

(b) communicated some of his requests for the conduct of the proceedings to the Registry through email correspondence.

1. On 12 June 2025 the Registry informed the applicant and the other parties that the Court currently intends to list the following applications for hearing in Term 4 2025, which runs from October to December:

(a) the application for leave to appeal in the principal proceeding;

(b) the application to join the Commonwealth Attorney-General as a respondent;

(c) the application to join the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court as a respondent; and

(d) the application to join the British Prime Minister as a respondent.

1. The Registry also informed the parties that the Court currently intends to list the intervenor applications for hearing on the papers, prior to the intended Term 4 hearing.
2. The Registrar has made orders setting out a timetable to prepare the matter for hearing, including setting deadlines for the filing of any additional intervenor applications or joinder applications in advance of or as part of the intended Term 4 hearing.

1. It is convenient to set out r 64.43(5) in full, alongside the associated subrules setting out the Registrar's power to refuse to file applications:

(1) The Registrar may refuse to accept for filing any application, including for leave to appeal, notice of appeal or other notice, written case, written case in response, affidavit or other document if the Registrar considers that -

(a) the document is irregular;

(b) the document is frivolous or vexatious on its face or by reference to any materials already filed or submitted for filing; or

(c) the filing of the document would give rise to an abuse of the process of the Court.

(2) The Registrar may refuse to accept for filing any application, including for leave to appeal, notice of appeal or other notice, written case, written case in response, affidavit or other document if -

(a) it is not complete;

(b) it does not comply with these Rules or the requirements of any applicable practice note;

(c) it is not properly signed, if required to be signed;

(d) it is not accompanied by all the documents required by this Order or any applicable practice note; or

(e) any applicable fee has not been paid.

(5) The Court of Appeal constituted by one or more Judges of Appeal may direct the Registrar to accept for filing any document which the Registrar has refused to accept under this Rule.

1. As McLeish JA observed in Thorpe (No 1), the purpose of the power of direction in r 64.43(5) 'is to enable judicial consideration of the question whether a document should be accepted for filing'.[12] In performing that function, it is not necessary for the judge to consider whether the Registrar's reasons for refusing to accept a document are infected by error. The Registrar's reasons may be relevant to the judge's consideration of the matter, but the role of the judge undertaking a review is not confined to the ascertainment of error. Rather, the judge is required to form their own view as to whether the document in question should be accepted for filing, by reference to the criteria specified in the rule. In other words, the judge considers the question afresh.[13]
2. The issue in this case is whether the documents fall within r 64.43(1) or (2) - that is, whether:

(1) they are irregular (r 64.43(1)(a));

(2) they are frivolous or vexatious on their face or by reference to any materials already filed or submitted for filing (r 64.43(1)(b));

(3) the filing of them would give rise to an abuse of the process of the Court (r 64.43(1)(c));

(4) they do not comply with the Rules or the requirements of any applicable practice note (r 64.43(2)(b)); and/or

(5) they are not accompanied by all the documents required by O64 or any applicable practice note (r 64.43(2)(d)).

1. In our opinion the four documents that have not been accepted for filing are irregular, and/or frivolous or vexatious on their face and by reference to other materials that have been filed or submitted for filing, and/or would give rise to abuse of process. In addition, some of the documents do not comply with the applicable rules or a practice note, or were not accompanied by all the required documents.

1. As noted above, document 495374 seeks 13 orders (set out in the annexure to these reasons). Many of these orders are not orders that the Court can or would make. In light of that fact, it was appropriate for the Registrar to refuse to accept the document for filing, even if some of the other orders sought might have been orders that the Court can or would make. It is thus necessary only to identify some examples of entirely inappropriate orders in order to make clear that the Registrar was correct not to accept the document for filing.
2. Proposed order 1 is that 'Chief Justice Niall has conduct of these proceedings and this court file'. This is not a suitable order to be made by the Court of Appeal on the motion of a party. A party has no entitlement to seek to have an identified judicial officer conduct a proceeding. Nor would a judge or judges of the Court of Appeal make such an order. The application for this order is frivolous, vexatious and irregular.
3. Proposed order 2 is that a 'bench of five Aboriginal judicial officers be assembled to hear the application for leave to appeal and the appeal'. Again, this is not a suitable order to be made by the Court of Appeal on the motion of a party. A party has no entitlement to seek to have a bench of a particular size or composition hear a proceeding. Nor would a judge or judges of the Court of Appeal make such an order. The application for this order is frivolous, vexatious and irregular.
4. Proposed order 3 is as follows:

If there are not sufficient Aboriginal judicial officers in the Supreme Court of Victoria to assemble a bench of five Aboriginal judicial officers, then Chief Justice Niall to write to and seek to meet with the Attorneys-General of the State of Victoria and the Commonwealth of Australia to request the special appointment of sufficient Aboriginal judicial officers including the appointment of (i) Professor Irene Watson, Research Professor of Law, University of South Australia, and (ii) law graduate Dr Jaqui Katona , Moondani Balluk Indigenous Unit, Victoria University, and (iii) lawyer Paul Coe (iv) lawyer Michael Mansell (v) puralia meenamatta ("Uncle Jim Everett"), the Palawa man from the clan plangermairreenner (vi) Dr Aunty Mary Graham, Kombumerri and Hakka Wakka, Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Queensland - six names listed here in case of illness or other unavailability on the hearing dates.

1. It is plain that this Court cannot order Niall CJ to take the step sought. The application for this order is frivolous, vexatious and irregular.
2. Proposed order 10 is as follows:

The Magistrates Court of Victoria is directed to retain counsel and participate properly in these proceedings as a normal party and respondent.

1. Again, it is plain that this Court cannot make an order in such terms directed to the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The application for this order is frivolous, vexatious and irregular.
2. Proposed order 11 is as follows:

Hon. Sonya Kilkenny, Attorney-General of Victoria, to immediately consult with:

i Premier Allan and

ii Minister for Treaty and First Peoples Hutchins and

iii Yoorrook Justice Commissioner Lovett and

iv Treaty Authority Member Clark and

v First Peoples' Assembly Co-Chairs Murray and Berg

to prepare a proper document of positions of the State of Victoria to replace the form submitted to the registry of the Court of Appeal on Monday 24 March 2025 by Victorian Government Solicitor.

1. Again, it is plain that this Court cannot make an order in such terms directed to the Attorney-General for Victoria. The application for this order is frivolous, vexatious and irregular.
2. We also note that document 495374 sought an order for joinder of the 'Prime Minister of England' (proposed order 12). Such an order could be made by this Court, but the application was not accompanied by the affidavit required by r 9.07(2) of the Rules (and the Court has not otherwise ordered, for the purposes of that rule). In addition, that order has been sought separately in an application that is intended to be listed for hearing in Term 4 of this Court's sittings. There is thus no utility in directing the Registrar to accept the document for filing in so far as it seeks that order.
3. In light of the fact that document 495374 sought the entirely inappropriate orders set out above, the Registrar was plainly correct to refuse to accept the document for filing. Thus we will not direct the Registrar to accept document 495374 for filing.

1. Document 495600 (which the applicant sought to file in proceeding 0088), seeks:

(a) an order that proceeding 0088 be heard with the principal proceeding;

(b) an order that there be a directions hearing before the President of the Court of Appeal; and

(c) three joinder orders.

1. Document 495603 (which the applicant sought to file in proceeding 0091) seeks the same orders, save that it seeks an order that proceeding 0091 be heard with the principal proceeding.
2. An order that the President conduct a directions hearing is not an order appropriately made by this Court. As noted above, this Court will not make orders, at the request of a party, that a hearing occur before a particular judge of the Court. The application for this order is frivolous, vexatious and irregular.
3. In so far as the joinder orders are concerned, the application was not accompanied by the affidavit required by r 9.07(2) of the Rules (and the Court has not otherwise ordered, for the purposes of that rule). The Registrar was thus correct to refuse to accept documents 495600 and 495603 for filing, pursuant to r 64.43(2)(d). Furthermore, the same joinder orders have been sought separately in applications made in the principal proceeding that have been accepted for filing and that are to be listed for hearing in Term 4 of this Court's sittings. There is thus no utility in directing the Registrar to accept the document for filing in so far as it seeks the joinder orders.
4. Assuming, without deciding, that it may be possible for this Court to make an order that two proceedings be heard together, the fact remains that each of documents 495600 and 495603 contains an entirely inappropriate order and contains orders in relation to which there is non-compliance with the Rules. The consequence is that the Registrar was correct not to accept these documents for filing. We will not direct that he should do so.

1. Document 495610 sought an order that a directions hearing in proceeding 0088 and proceeding 0091 be heard before the President of the Court of Appeal; it went on to outline the topics on which directions were sought, but it did not set out any specific orders that the applicant sought to have the President make.
2. It might be that the specific orders sought at the directions hearing could be gleaned from the exhibits to the affidavit material filed by the applicant with document 495610. However, r 64.03(3)(a) requires that an application other than an application for leave to appeal be made in accordance with Form 64B. That form requires that the orders sought be set out in the application. Inclusion of specific orders in an exhibit to an affidavit does not comply with the requirements of the Rules.
3. In any event, an order that the President conduct a directions hearing is not an order appropriately made by this Court. As noted above, this Court will not make orders, at the request of a party, that a hearing occur before a particular judge of the Court. The application for this order is frivolous, vexatious and irregular.
4. In light of the fact that document 495610 sought an entirely inappropriate order, the Registrar was plainly correct to refuse to accept the document for filing. Thus we will not direct the Registrar to accept it for filing.

[1] Thorpe v Magistrates' Court of Victoria [2025] VSC 22.

[2] Re Thorpe [2024] VSCA 172 ('Thorpe No 1').

[3] The applicant also sought special leave to appeal McLeish JA's decision in the High Court of Australia. That application was dismissed by the High Court, which held that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal 'have no prospects of success': Re Thorpe [2024] HCASL 315, [1] (Edelman and Jagot JJ).

[4] Thorpe v Prothonotary [2024] VSC 360.

[5] Re Thorpe (No 2) [2024] VSC 408.

[6] Aunty Alma Thorpe is the first applicant in proceeding 0088.

[7] By application other than for leave to appeal, dated 27 April 2025.

[8] By application other than for leave to appeal, dated 27 April 2025.

[9] By application other than for leave to appeal, dated 19 May 2025.

[10] By application other than for leave to appeal, dated 23 June 2025.

[11] By application other than for leave to appeal, dated 23 June 2025.

[12] Thorpe No 1 [2024] VSCA 172, [6] (McLeish JA).

[13] Thorpe No 1 [ 2024] VSCA 172, [6].