Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute King Charles for genocide
Por Rod McGuirk — – World RSS Feed
Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute King Charles for genocide
The ruling by three judges leaves Uncle Robbie Thorpe with one final domestic option
Rod McGuirk Monday 28 September 2026 13:41 BST
- Bookmark
Bookmark popover
Removed from bookmarks
Close popover
open image in gallery
Become an Independent member to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today.
Already a member?
Log in
Your support helps us to tell the story
Read more Support Now
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference. Read more
A Court of Appeal has rejected an activist’s landmark bid to prosecute King Charles III over the alleged genocide of Indigenous people.
The ruling leaves Uncle Robbie Thorpe with one final domestic option: seeking permission to appeal to the High Court of Australia, which accepts only about 10 per cent of applications for leave to appeal.
Thorpe, a 68-year-old elder of the Krautatungalung people, said Monday that he did not expect to receive a fair hearing in Australia.
After exhausting his options in Australian courts, he said he would take his allegations against the monarch to the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.
“The International Criminal Court will expose Australia for what it really is — a lying, racist, illegal occupation committing genocide,” Thorpe said.
Monday’s ruling was Thorpe’s third legal defeat since he began trying in 2023 to launch a private prosecution against the monarch in Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
open image in galleryHis case alleges that the king, who is also Australia’s head of state, along with the Australian government and its institutions, is perpetuating genocide by maintaining systems that disadvantage Indigenous people across numerous socioeconomic measures.
Indigenous Australians make up about four per cent of the population. They die younger, experience worse health outcomes and are more likely to be imprisoned or unemployed than other Australians, according to official statistics.
Doubt over whether an Australian can take the King to court
The British monarch is immune from all criminal and civil liability in the United Kingdom. This provides an immunity that is even broader than that of a U.S. president because it extends to personal acts that are outside official power, Sydney University constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey said.
The king’s common law immunity in Britain has likely been inherited by Australia, a former British colony that continues to recognise Britain’s monarch as its own head of state.
Twomey said she is unaware of the monarch’s common law immunity ever being tested in Australia.
The British and Australian parliaments could legislate to alter a monarch’s immunity. But a British monarch is also the head of state of several countries, including Canada and New Zealand. The monarch is entitled to sovereign immunity under customary international law and according to Australian statutes including the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 and the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967.
International Criminal Court isn’t open to private prosecutions
The International Criminal Court does not recognise head of state immunity and has the jurisdiction to prosecute on a charge of genocide.
But an individual such as Thorpe does not have the option to launch a private prosecution in the ICC as he has attempted in a low-level Australian court.
The U.N. Security Council can refer a prosecution, but Britain would veto such a move against King Charles, Australian National University international lawyer Don Rothwell said.
The most common path is for an individual to make the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor aware of evidence, as happened in cases against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“An individual cannot commence a prosecution. If they’ve exhausted all of their options under Australian law, the best that they can do is seek to provide evidence that they believe constitutes the crime of genocide. It’s then up to the International Criminal Court to determine whether they would seek to prosecute,” Rothwell said.
More about
International Criminal CourtMelbourneCourt Of AppealVictoriaVladimir PutinBenjamin NetanyahuNetherlandsNew ZealandAustraliaKing Charles III
Most popular
Popular videos
Bulletin
Read next
Fonte: – World RSS Feed
