An insight into Paul Towney’s Wiradjuri sovereignty case heard in the Orange Magistrates Court, Central NSW on 9 September 2025.
- by Professor Ghillar Michael Anderson, Sovereign Union of First Nations and Peoples in Australia, asserting Australia's First Nations Sovereignty into Governance
The original invasion of Wiradjuri lands witnessed the rise of a young Wiradjuri warrior, Windradyne, who understood that his Country was being invaded by the British colonial squattocracy from 1813 onwards.
If we were able to get into the mind of this young warrior and resistance fighter, we could understand the British absurdity of setting up protectionist programs to allow themselves to just simply take the lands of the Wiradjuri without any form of recognition of land ownership and/or recompense to the ancient owners, who sustainably followed a vastly different system of land management and ownership.
Clearly, the Eurocentric view of the time was that our People may have occupied the land but were not using it for any comparative purposes such as agriculture or development. The land was viewed as vacant and unused, and there were no defined estates enclosed by fences, or stone walls. This was viewed by the colonialists as free land for the taking, as the British argued, wherever a Englishman went so too did his law.
At the time of Windradyne’s era, the British law itself said that if the lands were already occupied then the Crown could not claim ownership and sovereign dominion over those lands and waters.
The most frustrating thing for First Nations Peoples to this day is – how can the courts in a supposedly just society fail to articulate and accept the fact that the High Court of Australia said in the Mabo case that the land was not terra nullius, but was occupied by our Peoples.
We have no treaties where our ancestors consented to their lands being occupied and used for other purposes. In the case of R v Murrell [R v Murrell and Bummaree (1836) 1 Legge 72; [1836] NSWSupC 35] it was argued in the Supreme Court of New South Wales# that, if Murrell was to be protected by English law and subject to English law, then the Crown had to compensate him and his People for the loss of their lands. But in the same case Justice Forbes argued that Murrell and his People had no law nor governance surrounding any of their estates that may have belonged to them. Given that the invaders could not detect any apparent leadership structure, nor laws, then the rights of the First Nations Peoples were completely ignored. Evidence produced to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements) as published in the Imperial Blue Book (1837) affirmed this was the state of the colony.
The Select Committee report was imported into the law of the colony and influenced the New South Wales Supreme Court case of R v Bonjon, 1841, [which is currently ignored], but here Justice Willis agreed with the legal submission that the English had no jurisdiction over the Aboriginal people. The state produced no evidence in support of their charges and Bonjon was released. Justice Willis ruled:
On 9 September 2025 in the Orange Magistrates Court, Central New South Wales, a very proud Wiradjuri warrior, Paul Towney, entered the court room, wearing his kangaroo skin, head dress of emu feathers, and painted with white ochre.
At the end of 2024 he completed a commemorative walk from Bathurst, where Martial Law was declared against the Wiradjuri, to Government House, Parramatta. He followed the track Windradyne and 120 Wiradjuri took to meet Governor Brisbane in 1824.
In the spirit of Windradyne, Paul Towney sought to expose his People’s sovereign assertion to Wiradjuri land, by defending a trespass charge for entering Charles Sturt University land he asserts has always been, and still is, Wiradjuri land.
In Paul Towney’s case, Magistrate Jeff Tunks accepted an agreed statement of facts. On page 1, para 3 it stated:
On page 2 the court accepted:
• Mr Paul Towney claims he is not bound by the Colonial NSW Law. Mr Towney states he is under Wiradjuri Lore.
• Mr Paul Towney disputes the Torrens Title that states the land is property of Charles Sturt University.
• Mr Towney claims that the initial land grant was unlawful and the land remains Wiradjuri Land.
Given this statement of facts, which Paul Towney agreed to but refused to sign, there was only one element left, as the Crown Prosecutor summed up: The only matter now in dispute is who owns the land. The Crown Prosecutor appeared ready to proceed on this basis, but the case turned on avoiding any reference to land ownership. It was not at all surprising that the court completely ignored any commentaries on these facts and thereby made no ruling on land ownership. Instead, the magistrate simply chose to deal with the criminal aspects in the case, i.e. Paul Towney cutting the chain to enter the land was determined to be a criminal act of reckless damage of private property, and on the question of trespass, for entering onto the land. For this Paul Towney was given a ‘Section 10’, which meant there is no recorded criminal conviction against his name. Additionally, on the question of occupying the land as a result of trespass, he was given a Community Release Order [good behaviour bond] for 12 months, not to repeat the offence and not to enter the complex or area, thereby avoiding a possible two year imprisonment sentence.
I repeat, it was telling that the court chose not to make any commentaries around the circumstances where Paul argued Wiradjuri’s sovereign right to the land. Paul Towney also asserted that the land granted by Governor Brisbane had an illegal land title, because Governor Brisbane had breached his Instructions from the Crown, namely to grant land in 200 acre parcels [with an extra 25 acres for a married couple and 10 acres for each child]. In support of his argument, Paul Towney applied and handed up the recent Federal Court case Dungog Shire Council v Attorney General of New South Wales [2024] FCA 166, which ruled that Governor Brisbane’s land grants that exceeded the instructed size were illegal, and were never approved by the Crown in England. As a consequence Native Title had not been extinguished on the lands.
Paul Towney applied this to his argument against the trespass charge by Charles Sturt University on land which originally was an illegal land grant of 2000 acres in 1821.
A declaration of Martial Law against the Wiradjuri was made in August 1824 by Governor Brisbane to put down Windradyne’s uprising and resistance. During this period, after they had killed 100s, 1000s, of Wiradjuri in the Bathurst and Orange districts, the Crown authorities took control [like in the Northern Territory Intervention (2007)]. It therefore follows that as a result of this Declaration of Martial Law, the Crown and its squattocracy benefitted from the proceeds of crimes against the Wiradjuri. Obtaining a benefit from a crime was against the law, even in 1824.
Despite Magistrate Tunks not reasoning why he ignored the gist of Paul Towney’s argument i.e. Windradyne never ceded Wiradjuri sovereignty, nor rights to their land, nor have any Wiradjuri since, the magistrate acknowledged that the actions of Paul Towney stemmed from an ancestral and intergenerational grief and trauma.
It is understandable that Paul’s actions, in the spirit of Windradyne’s fight against colonial invasion, are and will become ways of seeking answers and solutions. So the actions of the squatters in those early days of colonial expansion may become the future template for actions by our youth, if the squatter colonial society refuses to accept their wrongdoings of the past.
Our Peoples will NEVER forget, nor forgive, knowing that their ancestors were subjected to scorched earth and genocide policies of the British. Authorities talk about accountability, but it seems that only the oppressed are held to account when being rebellious.
The colonial aggressors act as though the taking of Australia was the spoils of war, and this is where history is being avoided by Australians at all costs. The truth is surfacing, knowing that all of the original instructions from the Crown of England, the Colonial Secretaries Office and the British Admiralty were insistent, when they instructed in writing: …You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an Intercourse with the Natives, and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them.
The colonists were NOT to take or interfere with their property. And if any of Our Subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary Interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, it is our Will and Pleasure tha you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the offence. (Historical Records of Australia vol. 1, Series 1, pp. 13-14)
The action of Paul Towney is one which serves to hold Governor Brisbane accountable, posthumously, for his illegal acts as Governor in the continuing name of the Crown, which we now know to have been illegal, by declaring Martial Law against Wiradjuri in the Bathurst region and illegally granting to the murderers – land grants of more than 200 acres.
Paul Towney’s action is an appeal to the public to understand the truth and to hold those responsible for their crimes, including Governor Brisbane.
How the courts constantly avoid the realities shows the apprehended bias against our First Nations Peoples inside the judiciary. The lawyers favour their jobs as opposed to meting out justice. in Paul Towney’s case the time has come for all concerned to be held responsible and accountable for the wrongdoings and at this point I wish to emphasis and reiterate a statement from the British Select Committee (1837).
The case of these people has not been wholly overlooked at home. In 1825 His Majesty issued instructions to the Governor to the effect that they [Aboriginal Peoples] should bel protected in the enjoyment of their possessions, preserved from violence and injustice, … we must still express our conviction that if we are ever able to make atonement to the remnant of this people, it will require no slight attention, and no ordinary sacrifices on our part to compensate the evil association which we have inflicted; but even hopelessness of making reparation for what is past would not in any way lessen our obligation to stop, as far as in us lies, the continuance of iniquity.
Report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements) with the Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 26 June 1837. Imperial Blue Book, 1837 nr VII. 425, p.11. Following the strength of Wiradjuri leader Windradyne– a true warrior– Paul Towney intends to find avenues to continue his fight for the sovereign right of his People to be accepted as true landlords of their own estates, and the Crown and their modern authorities must accept the realities of colonialism in this country, along with the severe consequences that our Peoples have suffered and continue to resist and uphold the truth.
The decision in the Mabo case left open a number of significant questions and no amount of legislative manipulation can cover the tracks of Australia’s genocidal history.
Everyone, including the UN, who are external observers to the plight of our People in this country, understand our struggle and it is not possible for a just and equitable outcome in legal jurisdictions in Australia, because the thieves appoint the judges, who are sworn loyalists to the Bar of the Crown, and who are committed to protecting their ill-gotten gains.
The Crown’s justice is measured ensuring that the public can see the hidden rule of thumb always hiding the truth.
- by Professor Ghillar Michael Anderson,, Convenor of the Sovereign Union, last surviving member of the founding four of the Aboriginal Embassy and Head of State of the Euahlayi Peoples Republic
Governor Brisbane’s Proclamation of Martial Law April 1824 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2183147
Coe, Mary (1971, 1986) Windradyne, a Wiradjuri Koori; with paintings by Isabell Coe, Blackbooks, Glebe, Sydney.
Gapps, Steve, (2021) Gudyarra: the first Wiradyuri war of resistance, New South Publishing, UNSW, Sydney.
Gardiner, Stephanie, ‘Elder fails to defend trespass using sovereignty claim’, National Indigenous Times, 10 September 2025.
Marschke, Tanya, ‘Dozens pack courthouse as trespassing case against Wiradjuri man wraps up,’ Central Western Daily, 10 September 2025.
Salisbury, T. and Gresser, P.J., Windradyne of the Wiradjuri; martial law at Bathurst in 1824, Wentworth Books, Sydney. Paul Towney FaceBook.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
See also BLAK SOVEREIGN MOVEMENT (Facebook) https://bit.ly/46k35SS which includes more image
- by Professor Ghillar Michael Anderson, Sovereign Union of First Nations and Peoples in Australia, asserting Australia's First Nations Sovereignty into Governance
The original invasion of Wiradjuri lands witnessed the rise of a young Wiradjuri warrior, Windradyne, who understood that his Country was being invaded by the British colonial squattocracy from 1813 onwards.
If we were able to get into the mind of this young warrior and resistance fighter, we could understand the British absurdity of setting up protectionist programs to allow themselves to just simply take the lands of the Wiradjuri without any form of recognition of land ownership and/or recompense to the ancient owners, who sustainably followed a vastly different system of land management and ownership.
Clearly, the Eurocentric view of the time was that our People may have occupied the land but were not using it for any comparative purposes such as agriculture or development. The land was viewed as vacant and unused, and there were no defined estates enclosed by fences, or stone walls. This was viewed by the colonialists as free land for the taking, as the British argued, wherever a Englishman went so too did his law.
At the time of Windradyne’s era, the British law itself said that if the lands were already occupied then the Crown could not claim ownership and sovereign dominion over those lands and waters.
The most frustrating thing for First Nations Peoples to this day is – how can the courts in a supposedly just society fail to articulate and accept the fact that the High Court of Australia said in the Mabo case that the land was not terra nullius, but was occupied by our Peoples.
We have no treaties where our ancestors consented to their lands being occupied and used for other purposes. In the case of R v Murrell [R v Murrell and Bummaree (1836) 1 Legge 72; [1836] NSWSupC 35] it was argued in the Supreme Court of New South Wales# that, if Murrell was to be protected by English law and subject to English law, then the Crown had to compensate him and his People for the loss of their lands. But in the same case Justice Forbes argued that Murrell and his People had no law nor governance surrounding any of their estates that may have belonged to them. Given that the invaders could not detect any apparent leadership structure, nor laws, then the rights of the First Nations Peoples were completely ignored. Evidence produced to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements) as published in the Imperial Blue Book (1837) affirmed this was the state of the colony.
It might be presumed that the native inhabitants of any land have an incontrovertible right to their own soil: a plain and sacred right, however, which seems not to have been understood. Europeans have entered their borders uninvited, and, when there, have not only acted as if they were undoubted lords of the soil, but have punished the natives as aggressors if they have evinced any dispossession to live in their own country. “If they have been found upon their own property, they have been treated as thieves and robbers. They are driven back into the interior as if they were dogs or kangaroos.” [Ev.2. 1817, 1819.]
- Report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements) with the Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 26 June 1837. Imperial Blue Book, 1837 nr VII. 425
The Select Committee report was imported into the law of the colony and influenced the New South Wales Supreme Court case of R v Bonjon, 1841, [which is currently ignored], but here Justice Willis agreed with the legal submission that the English had no jurisdiction over the Aboriginal people. The state produced no evidence in support of their charges and Bonjon was released. Justice Willis ruled:
In this instance however the colonists and not the aborigines are the foreigners; the former are exotics, the latter indigenous, the latter the native sovereigns of the soil, the former uninvited intruders. … I repeat that I am not aware of any express enactment or treaty subjecting the Aborigines of this colony to the English colonial law, and I have shown that the Aborigines cannot be considered as Foreigners in a Kingdom which is their own. - Willis J, Supreme Court of New South Wales, R v Bonjon 1841
On 9 September 2025 in the Orange Magistrates Court, Central New South Wales, a very proud Wiradjuri warrior, Paul Towney, entered the court room, wearing his kangaroo skin, head dress of emu feathers, and painted with white ochre.
At the end of 2024 he completed a commemorative walk from Bathurst, where Martial Law was declared against the Wiradjuri, to Government House, Parramatta. He followed the track Windradyne and 120 Wiradjuri took to meet Governor Brisbane in 1824.
In the spirit of Windradyne, Paul Towney sought to expose his People’s sovereign assertion to Wiradjuri land, by defending a trespass charge for entering Charles Sturt University land he asserts has always been, and still is, Wiradjuri land.
In Paul Towney’s case, Magistrate Jeff Tunks accepted an agreed statement of facts. On page 1, para 3 it stated:
Security staff at the university have noticed the accused at the location. Security staff have approached the accused to ask him to leave. The accused stated that he was making a claim for the land as it belongs to Wiradjuri People and it is right to be there and would not leave the premises or building and asserted that he retains continuing equity in the land under Wiradjuri Lore.'
On page 2 the court accepted:
• Mr Paul Towney claims he is not bound by the Colonial NSW Law. Mr Towney states he is under Wiradjuri Lore.
• Mr Paul Towney disputes the Torrens Title that states the land is property of Charles Sturt University.
• Mr Towney claims that the initial land grant was unlawful and the land remains Wiradjuri Land.
Given this statement of facts, which Paul Towney agreed to but refused to sign, there was only one element left, as the Crown Prosecutor summed up: The only matter now in dispute is who owns the land. The Crown Prosecutor appeared ready to proceed on this basis, but the case turned on avoiding any reference to land ownership. It was not at all surprising that the court completely ignored any commentaries on these facts and thereby made no ruling on land ownership. Instead, the magistrate simply chose to deal with the criminal aspects in the case, i.e. Paul Towney cutting the chain to enter the land was determined to be a criminal act of reckless damage of private property, and on the question of trespass, for entering onto the land. For this Paul Towney was given a ‘Section 10’, which meant there is no recorded criminal conviction against his name. Additionally, on the question of occupying the land as a result of trespass, he was given a Community Release Order [good behaviour bond] for 12 months, not to repeat the offence and not to enter the complex or area, thereby avoiding a possible two year imprisonment sentence.
I repeat, it was telling that the court chose not to make any commentaries around the circumstances where Paul argued Wiradjuri’s sovereign right to the land. Paul Towney also asserted that the land granted by Governor Brisbane had an illegal land title, because Governor Brisbane had breached his Instructions from the Crown, namely to grant land in 200 acre parcels [with an extra 25 acres for a married couple and 10 acres for each child]. In support of his argument, Paul Towney applied and handed up the recent Federal Court case Dungog Shire Council v Attorney General of New South Wales [2024] FCA 166, which ruled that Governor Brisbane’s land grants that exceeded the instructed size were illegal, and were never approved by the Crown in England. As a consequence Native Title had not been extinguished on the lands.
Paul Towney applied this to his argument against the trespass charge by Charles Sturt University on land which originally was an illegal land grant of 2000 acres in 1821.
A declaration of Martial Law against the Wiradjuri was made in August 1824 by Governor Brisbane to put down Windradyne’s uprising and resistance. During this period, after they had killed 100s, 1000s, of Wiradjuri in the Bathurst and Orange districts, the Crown authorities took control [like in the Northern Territory Intervention (2007)]. It therefore follows that as a result of this Declaration of Martial Law, the Crown and its squattocracy benefitted from the proceeds of crimes against the Wiradjuri. Obtaining a benefit from a crime was against the law, even in 1824.
Despite Magistrate Tunks not reasoning why he ignored the gist of Paul Towney’s argument i.e. Windradyne never ceded Wiradjuri sovereignty, nor rights to their land, nor have any Wiradjuri since, the magistrate acknowledged that the actions of Paul Towney stemmed from an ancestral and intergenerational grief and trauma.
It is understandable that Paul’s actions, in the spirit of Windradyne’s fight against colonial invasion, are and will become ways of seeking answers and solutions. So the actions of the squatters in those early days of colonial expansion may become the future template for actions by our youth, if the squatter colonial society refuses to accept their wrongdoings of the past.
Our Peoples will NEVER forget, nor forgive, knowing that their ancestors were subjected to scorched earth and genocide policies of the British. Authorities talk about accountability, but it seems that only the oppressed are held to account when being rebellious.
The colonial aggressors act as though the taking of Australia was the spoils of war, and this is where history is being avoided by Australians at all costs. The truth is surfacing, knowing that all of the original instructions from the Crown of England, the Colonial Secretaries Office and the British Admiralty were insistent, when they instructed in writing: …You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an Intercourse with the Natives, and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them.
The colonists were NOT to take or interfere with their property. And if any of Our Subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary Interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, it is our Will and Pleasure tha you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the offence. (Historical Records of Australia vol. 1, Series 1, pp. 13-14)
The action of Paul Towney is one which serves to hold Governor Brisbane accountable, posthumously, for his illegal acts as Governor in the continuing name of the Crown, which we now know to have been illegal, by declaring Martial Law against Wiradjuri in the Bathurst region and illegally granting to the murderers – land grants of more than 200 acres.
Paul Towney’s action is an appeal to the public to understand the truth and to hold those responsible for their crimes, including Governor Brisbane.
How the courts constantly avoid the realities shows the apprehended bias against our First Nations Peoples inside the judiciary. The lawyers favour their jobs as opposed to meting out justice. in Paul Towney’s case the time has come for all concerned to be held responsible and accountable for the wrongdoings and at this point I wish to emphasis and reiterate a statement from the British Select Committee (1837).
The case of these people has not been wholly overlooked at home. In 1825 His Majesty issued instructions to the Governor to the effect that they [Aboriginal Peoples] should bel protected in the enjoyment of their possessions, preserved from violence and injustice, … we must still express our conviction that if we are ever able to make atonement to the remnant of this people, it will require no slight attention, and no ordinary sacrifices on our part to compensate the evil association which we have inflicted; but even hopelessness of making reparation for what is past would not in any way lessen our obligation to stop, as far as in us lies, the continuance of iniquity.
Report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Aborigines (British Settlements) with the Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 26 June 1837. Imperial Blue Book, 1837 nr VII. 425, p.11. Following the strength of Wiradjuri leader Windradyne– a true warrior– Paul Towney intends to find avenues to continue his fight for the sovereign right of his People to be accepted as true landlords of their own estates, and the Crown and their modern authorities must accept the realities of colonialism in this country, along with the severe consequences that our Peoples have suffered and continue to resist and uphold the truth.
The decision in the Mabo case left open a number of significant questions and no amount of legislative manipulation can cover the tracks of Australia’s genocidal history.
Everyone, including the UN, who are external observers to the plight of our People in this country, understand our struggle and it is not possible for a just and equitable outcome in legal jurisdictions in Australia, because the thieves appoint the judges, who are sworn loyalists to the Bar of the Crown, and who are committed to protecting their ill-gotten gains.
The Crown’s justice is measured ensuring that the public can see the hidden rule of thumb always hiding the truth.
- by Professor Ghillar Michael Anderson,, Convenor of the Sovereign Union, last surviving member of the founding four of the Aboriginal Embassy and Head of State of the Euahlayi Peoples Republic
Background:
Governor Brisbane’s Proclamation of Martial Law April 1824 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2183147
Coe, Mary (1971, 1986) Windradyne, a Wiradjuri Koori; with paintings by Isabell Coe, Blackbooks, Glebe, Sydney.
Gapps, Steve, (2021) Gudyarra: the first Wiradyuri war of resistance, New South Publishing, UNSW, Sydney.
Gardiner, Stephanie, ‘Elder fails to defend trespass using sovereignty claim’, National Indigenous Times, 10 September 2025.
Marschke, Tanya, ‘Dozens pack courthouse as trespassing case against Wiradjuri man wraps up,’ Central Western Daily, 10 September 2025.
Salisbury, T. and Gresser, P.J., Windradyne of the Wiradjuri; martial law at Bathurst in 1824, Wentworth Books, Sydney. Paul Towney FaceBook.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
See also BLAK SOVEREIGN MOVEMENT (Facebook) https://bit.ly/46k35SS which includes more image
Add new comment