An Indigenous elder activist trying to prosecute King Charles for alleged genocide against Aboriginal people has had his appeal rejected by a panel of three judges in the Australian state of Victoria.
The decision, made by the Court of Appeal, represents the third time Uncle Robbie Thorpe has faced defeat in his legal campaign.
The honorific “uncle” is a term of respect accorded to elders within Indigenous Australian communities.
It began in 2023, when he first sought to launch a private prosecution through Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
The 68-year-old’s case argues the King, who remains Australia’s head of state, bears responsibility alongside Australian governmental institutions for perpetuating systems that systematically disadvantage the country’s First Nations people.
Mr Thorpe, a member of the Krautatungalung people from south-eastern Australia, stated plainly that he did not believe he could receive a fair hearing in Australia.
His allegations centre on the claim that Indigenous Australians – who comprise roughly four per cent of the population – continue to suffer disproportionately across a range of socioeconomic factors.
Official data shows that Aboriginal people face shorter life expectancy, poorer health, and higher rates of incarceration and unemployment compared with other Australians.
Despite his latest courtroom setback, Mr Thorpe declared: “The International Criminal Court will expose Australia for what it really is – a lying, racist, illegal occupation committing genocide.”
According to constitutional law scholar at Sydney University Anne Twomey, the King has immunity from all criminal and civil proceedings in the UK – a protection that surpasses even that afforded to an American President.
Ms Twomey said it is likely this approach has also been adopted in Australia, though it has never been tested.
The King remains Australia’s head of state
|
GETTY
Despite this string of defeats, Mr Thorpe has one final avenue within Australia’s domestic legal framework.
He could seek leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, the nation’s supreme judicial body – though the odds are steep, with the court granting permission in only approximately one in 10 applications.
And while the International Criminal Court (ICC) does not recognise head of state immunity and possesses jurisdiction over genocide charges, it does not, however, permit private individuals to initiate prosecutions in the manner Mr Thorpe attempted in Melbourne.
Don Rothwell, an international law expert at the Australian National University, explained that Britain’s seat on the UN Security Council presents an additional barrier, as London would inevitably exercise its veto against any referral targeting the King.
The likeliest route, Mr Rothwell noted, would be to present evidence directly to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor – a path previously taken in proceedings against Vladimir Putin and 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,” he said.
Along with Australia, the King also serves as head of state for several other nations, including Canada and New Zealand, and is entitled to sovereign immunity under customary international law.
Former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Dame Jacinda Ardern, told The Times earlier this year, however, she believes the Land of the Long White Cloud will become a republic in her lifetime.