My written submissions are set out in my application ... and my affidavit.

Oral submissions are more culturally appropriate and I will speak to the Court in person as is Our way.

1. The affidavit filed in support of the application for leave to intervene says as follows:

I, Oongi Barb Flick of Gomeroi/Yawallyi/Bigambul Nations, holder of Knowledge particularly women's knowledge and traditions passed down from my Great Grandmother and my responsibility to pass this on to future generations affirm:

1. I make this affidavit in support of my Form 64B application dated 29 July 2025 to intervene in this King Charles genocide case in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

2. I know that Dr Aunty Alma Thorpe, Uncle Robbie Thorpe, Senator the Honourable Lidia Thorpe, Tjilpi Murray George, Puralia Meenamatta of Lutruwita, Keiran Stewart-Assheton, Derek Cameron Tipper and Desmond Blurton, Balladong/Yuid Nyungah all support my application to intervene as do all the other proposed intervenors preparing their applications.

3. I believe that my intervention would be broadly supported by Our community across this continent and seen as essential.

4. One experience We all have in common is We have all experienced and continue to experience until you decide to stop your ongoing genocide against Us - your armed military invasion, your attempted occupation and destruction of Our Lands, your theft of Our Resources and your purported usurpation of Our Law, the ancient unchanging unchangeable law from this country.

1. The affidavit then attaches extracts from the following four documents, encompassing some 30 pages:

(a) Barbara Flick, 'Colonisation and Decolonisation: An Aboriginal Experience' in Playing the State, Australian Feminists Interventions, edited by Sophie Watson (1990);

(b) Barb Flick, 'They Weren't Allowed In The Gate', Australian Education Union Annual Federal Conference, January 2001;

(c) Oongi Barb Flick, 'One Country, Two Laws: Challenges facing both Aboriginal people and the legal system as it exists today - a personal perspective and my family's activism', Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers Webinar Event, 5 July 2022; and

(d) Barbara Flick, 'Spiritual Healing: Land and Health', Healing our Spirit Worldwide Conference, Sydney, November 1994.

1. Ms Flick's application and submissions do not address either the correctness of the decision below, or the grounds of appeal in Uncle Robbie Thorpe's application for leave to appeal. Nor do the application, the submissions or the affidavit explain how the annexures to the affidavit are relevant to the correctness of the decision below or to the grounds of appeal.
2. In light of the above, Ms Flick has not satisfied us that her contribution as an intervenor would assist this Court in resolving the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal.
3. Nor has Ms Flick satisfied us that her participation as an intervenor would not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the application or appeal. As noted above, she has provided the Court with relatively voluminous material without any submissions that demonstrate that the material is relevant to the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal. Thus, if the Court were to accept the application for leave to intervene, we would have to read and digest that material unassisted by any written submissions.
4. Furthermore, Ms Flick wishes to address the Court orally. Oral participation in the hearing is likely to extend the time required for the hearing and thus interfere with the conduct of the application for leave to appeal.
5. We note, for completeness, that Ms Flick's assertion of an interest in the proceeding does not entitle her to intervene in the proceeding.
6. For these reasons, we would refuse Ms Flick's application for leave to intervene.

1. For broadly the same reasons, we would refuse each of the other intervenors' applications. Each of those applications seeks leave to intervene 'to appear in person at the bar table and address any matter (unless the Court extemporaneously withdraws leave to address certain matters) and make submissions both oral and in writing with no undertaking as to costs'. Each application states, in summary that:

(a) the applicant's contribution as an intervener will be useful and different from the contribution of the parties;

(b) in addition, the applicant has an interest in the proceedings; and

(c) the proposed intervention would not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the application or appeal and would, rather, 'assist with the conduct of the application (and appeal if granted)'.

1. Each application also attaches a document headed 'Written Submissions', which in each case says as follows:

My written submissions are set out in my application ... and my affidavit.

Oral submissions are more culturally appropriate and I will speak to the Court in person as is Our way.

1. In light of these common features, we will address each application in summary form, noting, where appropriate, any departure from the common form, and noting the contents of the affidavit filed in support, which is different in each case.

Senator Lidia Thorpe's application for leave to intervene

1. Senator Lidia's Thorpe's application varies slightly from the common form in that she asserts an interest in the proceeding on the basis that she and her 'Electors' will be bound by the Court's decision and because the legal interests of her, her people and her 'Electors' would be substantially affected. The addition of references to Senator Thorpe's Electors does not alter our analysis.
2. Senator Thorpe filed an affidavit of some six pages containing around 70 pages of annexures, and a one-page supplementary affidavit containing around 15 pages of annexures. Those annexures include various media reports, extracts from Hansard of the Commonwealth Parliament, bills introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament and the Australian Human Rights Commission's 'National Anti-Racism Framework'.
3. Senator Thorpe's application and submissions do not address either the correctness of the decision below, or the issues to be determined on any appeal, should leave to appeal be granted. Nor do the application, the submissions or the affidavit explain how the annexures to the affidavit are relevant to the correctness of the decision below or to the grounds of appeal.
4. In light of the above, Senator Thorpe has not satisfied us that her contribution as an intervenor would assist this Court in resolving the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal.
5. Nor has Senator Thorpe satisfied us that her participation as an intervenor would not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the application or appeal. As noted above, she has provided the Court with voluminous material without any submissions that demonstrate that the material is relevant to the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal. Thus, if the Court were to accept the application for leave to intervene, we would have to read and digest that material unassisted by any written submissions.
6. Furthermore, Senator Thorpe wishes to address the Court orally. Oral participation in the hearing is likely to extend the time required for the hearing and this would interfere with the conduct of the application for leave to appeal.
7. For these reasons, we would refuse Senator Thorpe's application for leave to intervene.

Aunty Alma Thorpe's application for leave to intervene

1. Aunty Alma Thorpe's application varies somewhat from the common form, because she has also filed a separate application for leave to appeal which she 'expect[s] will be heard together with this King Charles appeal'. On 12 June 2025, the Registry informed Uncle Robbie Thorpe that the Court does not intend to list Aunty Alma Thorpe's application for leave to appeal at the same time as Uncle Robbie Thorpe's application in the principal proceeding. The fact that Aunty Alma Thorpe is the first applicant in a separate proceeding does not alter our analysis.
2. Aunty Alma Thorpe has filed a two-page affidavit containing around 100 pages of annexures, and a two-page supplementary affidavit containing around 10 pages of annexures. Those annexures include a Victoria University report on Aunty Alma Thorpe's 'life and achievements upon the occasion of the awarding of [her] honorary degree', her written witness statement and transcript of her oral testimony given to the Yoorrook Justice Commission, a report on forced assimilation and various documents sought to be filed in separate court proceedings.
3. Aunty Alma Thorpe's application and submissions do not address either the correctness of the decision below, or the issues to be determined on any appeal, should leave to appeal be granted. Nor do the application, the submissions or the affidavit explain how the annexures to the affidavit are relevant to the correctness of the decision below or to the grounds of appeal.
4. In light of the above, Aunty Alma Thorpe has not satisfied us that her contribution as an intervenor would assist this Court in resolving the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal.
5. Nor has Aunty Alma Thorpe satisfied us that her participation as an intervenor would not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the application or appeal. As noted above, she has provided the Court with voluminous material without any submissions that demonstrate that the material is relevant to the issues to be determined on appeal. Thus if the Court were to accept the application for leave to intervene, we would have to read and digest that material unassisted by any written submissions.
6. Furthermore, Aunty Alma Thorpe wishes to address the Court orally. Oral participation in the hearing is likely to extend the time required for the hearing and this would interfere with the conduct of the application for leave to appeal.
7. For these reasons, we would refuse Aunty Alma Thorpe's application for leave to intervene.

Tjilpi Murray George's application for leave to intervene

1. Tjilpi Murray George's application is substantially in the common form. He filed an affidavit and supplementary affidavit, each two pages in length, and just over 10 pages of annexures to the supplementary affidavit. Those annexures include various photos of Tjilpi Murray George and others at Camp Sovereignty, a letter sent to the AMYAC Board of Directors and an extract of transcript of a YouTube video described as 'Anangu Tjuta and the true Canvas Story'.
2. Mr George's application and submissions do not address either the correctness of the decision below, or the grounds of appeal in Uncle Robbie Thorpe's application for leave to appeal. Nor do his application, submissions or affidavit explain how the annexures to the affidavit are relevant to the correctness of the decision below or to the grounds of appeal.
3. In light of the above, Mr George has not satisfied us that his contribution as an intervenor would assist this Court in resolving the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal.
4. Nor has Mr George satisfied us that his participation as an intervenor would not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the application or appeal. He has not provided the Court with any submissions that demonstrate that the material he has filed is relevant to the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal. Thus, if the Court were to accept the application for leave to intervene, we would have to read and digest that material unassisted by any written submissions.
5. Furthermore, Mr George wishes to address the Court orally. Oral participation in the hearing is likely to extend the time required for the hearing and this would interfere with the conduct of the application for leave to appeal.
6. For these reasons, we would refuse Mr George's application for leave to intervene.

Puralia Meenamatta's application for leave to intervene

1. Puralia Meenamatta's application is substantially in the common form. He has filed an affidavit of some four pages, containing around 250 pages of annexures. Those annexures include various media reports, copies of Aboriginal passports, a journal article authored by Mr Meenamatta titled 'Savage Nation - First Nations' Philosophy and Sovereignty' and Mr Meenamatta's Master of History thesis titled 'Learning to understand: My life story to pakana philosophy'. Mr Meenamatta deposes in his affidavit that '[i]t is universal cultural knowledge and understanding of the Aboriginal Peoples (First Nations) of this continent that the Law is in Country'.
2. Mr Meenamatta's application and submissions do not address either the correctness of the decision below, or the issues to be determined on any appeal, should leave to appeal be granted. Nor does the material explain how the statements made in the affidavit and annexures to the affidavit are relevant to the correctness of the decision below or to the determination of the grounds of appeal.
3. In light of the above, Mr Meenamatta has not satisfied us that his contribution as an intervenor would assist this Court in resolving the issues to be determined on appeal.
4. Nor has Mr Meenamatta satisfied us that his participation as an intervenor would not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the application or appeal. As noted above, he has provided the Court with voluminous material without any submissions that demonstrate that the material is relevant to the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal. Thus, if the Court were to accept the application for leave to intervene, we would have to read and digest that material unassisted by any written submissions.
5. Furthermore, Mr Meenamatta wishes to address the Court orally. Oral participation in the hearing is likely to extend the time required for the hearing and this would interfere with the conduct of the application for leave to appeal.
6. For these reasons, we would refuse Mr Meenamatta's application for leave to intervene.

Keiran Stewart-Assheton's application for leave to intervene

1. Keiran Stewart-Assheton's application is substantially in the common form. He filed an affidavit and annexure of some eight pages. The annexure is a list of demands extracted from a website attributed to the 'Black Peoples Union'.
2. Mr Stewart-Assheton's application and submissions do not address either the correctness of the decision below, or the grounds of appeal in Uncle Robbie Thorpe's application for leave to appeal. Nor do the application, the submissions or the affidavit explain how the annexure to the affidavit is relevant to the correctness of the decision below or to the grounds of appeal.
3. In light of the above, Mr Stewart-Assheton has not satisfied us that his contribution as an intervenor would assist this Court in resolving the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal.
4. Nor has Mr Stewart-Assheton satisfied us that his participation as an intervenor would not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the application or appeal. He has not provided the Court with any submissions that demonstrate that the material filed is relevant to the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal. Thus, if the Court were to accept the application for leave to intervene, we would have to read and digest that material unassisted by any written submissions.
5. Furthermore, Mr Stewart-Assheton wishes to address the Court orally. Oral participation in the hearing is likely to extend the time required for the hearing and this would interfere with the conduct of the application for leave to appeal.
6. For these reasons, we would refuse Mr Stewart-Assheton's application for leave to intervene.

Derek Cameron Tipper's application for leave to intervene

1. Derek Cameron Tipper's application is substantially in the common form. He filed an affidavit of some two pages, containing around 40 pages of annexures. Those annexures include various statements (one written only in French) relating to the rights of the Kanak Indigenous People in the Non-Self-Governing Territory of New Caledonia and Noumea, a letter authored by the 'allied women of Kanaky' titled 'Letter to our sisters in the World March of Women and all over the world', and various media reports from 'Radio RATA'.
2. Mr Tipper's application and submissions do not address either the correctness of the decision below, or the grounds of appeal in Uncle Robbie Thorpe's application for leave to appeal. Nor do the application, the submissions or the affidavit explain how the annexures to the affidavit are relevant to the correctness of the decision below or to the grounds of appeal.
3. In light of the above, Mr Tipper has not satisfied us that his contribution as an intervenor would assist this Court in resolving the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal.
4. Nor has Mr Tipper satisfied us that his participation as an intervenor would not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the application or appeal. He has not provided the Court with any submissions that demonstrate that the material filed is relevant to the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal. Thus, if the Court were to accept the application for leave to intervene, we would have to read and digest that material unassisted by any written submissions.
5. Furthermore, Mr Tipper wishes to address the Court orally. Oral participation in the hearing is likely to extend the time required for the hearing and this would interfere with the conduct of the application for leave to appeal.
6. For these reasons, we would refuse Mr Tipper's application for leave to intervene.

Desmond Blurton's application for leave to intervene

1. Desmond Blurton's application is substantially in the common form. He filed an affidavit of some two pages with no annexures.
2. Mr Blurton's application and submissions do not address either the correctness of the decision below, or the grounds of appeal in Uncle Robbie Thorpe's application for leave to appeal.
3. Mr Blurton has not satisfied us that his contribution as an intervenor would assist this Court in resolving the issues raised by the application for leave to appeal. Nor has Mr Blurton satisfied us that his participation as an intervenor would not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the application or appeal. Mr Blurton wishes to address the Court orally. Oral participation in the hearing is likely to extend the time required for the hearing and this would interfere with the conduct of the application for leave to appeal.
4. For these reasons, we would refuse Mr Blurton's application for leave to intervene.

1. In summary, we do not consider that any of the intervenors' applications would assist the Court. To the contrary, we consider that participation of the intervenors is likely to unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the proceeding. Nor does an assertion of an interest in the proceeding entitle a person to intervene in the proceeding. For those reasons, we will refuse leave to intervene to each applicant.

[1] The proceeding was commenced in the name 'Uncle Robbie Thorpe'. In these reasons we will use that name to describe Mr Thorpe because we understand that is how he prefers to be addressed. No familiarity with, or disrespect to, him is intended by that usage.

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