King Charles could be taken to the International Criminal Court by this indigenous Australian man
An indigenous Australian man who is pursuing a genocide case against King Charles has vowed to take it to the International Criminal Court.
Activist Uncle Robbie Thorpe has attempted a landmark bid to prosecute the King over the alleged genocide of indigenous people.
On Monday, (28 September), three appellate judges at Victoria’s Court of Appeal rejected Thorpe’s bid, leaving him with just one final option in his home country: seeking permission to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Speaking after his legal defeat, Thorpe, a 68-year-old elder of the Krautatungalung people, told ABC News: "Australia is just totally in denial.
Advert
"If it wasn't for the acts of terror and the policies of genocide, Australia wouldn't exist.
"That's my reality, and a lot of other people's."
He also claimed that he did not expect to get a fair trial 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.
His 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.
In Australia, indigenous people make up around four percent of the population.
Official statistics from the country show that typically, indigenous people die younger, experience worse health outcomes and are more likely to be imprisoned or unemployed than other Australians.
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.
The Court of Appeal rejected the application to appeal the previously upheld decision on the basis that it did not have a real prospect of success.
"While acknowledging the significance of the questions raised by Uncle Robbie, the primary judge stated [correctly and self-evidently] that the only jurisdiction she could exercise was the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria," the appeal court said.
"The primary judge concluded that the senior registrar of the Magistrates' Court acted lawfully … as the charges alleged in the charge-sheet did not disclose an offence known to the law of Victoria."
The King - or any reigning British monarch - is immune from all criminal and civil liability in the United Kingdom.
And 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.
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.
The most common path is for an individual to make the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor aware of evidence.
Australian National University international lawyer Don Rothwell told the Press Association: “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.”
Topics: Australia, UK News, King Charles III, Royal Family
Claire Reid