King Charles Loses Appeal in Australian Genocide Case on September 30

Victoria’s Court of Appeal rejected an Aboriginal elder’s attempt to appeal a ruling blocking his private prosecution of King Charles III over alleged genocide against Indigenous Australians on September 30. Robbie Thorpe, a 68-year-old Krautatungalung elder, has now exhausted three domestic legal avenues and says he will pursue the case at the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.

What Thorpe alleged and why courts blocked it

Thorpe filed charges in Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in 2023, naming King Charles and the Australian government as perpetrators of ongoing genocide against First Peoples since September 28, 2022. He relied on common law, federal genocide legislation, and First Peoples’ sovereign laws. A senior registrar rejected the charges on the grounds they did not reference any proper source of law. The Supreme Court upheld that decision, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on Monday, finding the charges did not disclose an offence known to Victorian law.

The court’s reasoning and Thorpe’s path forward

The three appellate judges stated they could only exercise Supreme Court of Victoria jurisdiction and that the senior registrar acted lawfully in rejecting charges that did not disclose a recognised offence. This is Thorpe’s third legal defeat since 2023. He has one final domestic option: seeking leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, which accepts only about 10% of applications. Thorpe said he does not expect a fair hearing in Australia and will pursue charges at the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.

What Thorpe claims about Indigenous disadvantage

Thorpe alleges that King Charles, as Australia’s head of state, and Australian institutions perpetuate genocide by maintaining systems that disadvantage Indigenous people. Official statistics show Indigenous Australians, who make up about 4% of the population, die younger, experience worse health outcomes, and are more likely to be imprisoned or unemployed than other Australians. The court rulings did not determine whether these allegations are true, only whether they could be prosecuted under Victorian law.

King Charles’s legal immunity and international options

In Britain, the King holds immunity from all criminal and civil liability, even for personal acts outside official power, according to Sydney University constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey. This immunity is broader than that of a U.S. president. The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed by nationals of member states or on their territory. Australia is a member of the ICC.

Final Thoughts

Thorpe’s domestic legal options have closed. His case now hinges on whether the ICC will accept jurisdiction and whether his allegations meet the court’s threshold for prosecution. The ruling clarifies that Australian courts cannot entertain private prosecutions against sitting monarchs under current law.

FAQs

Disclaimer:

The content shared by Meyka AI PTY LTD is solely for research and informational purposes.  Meyka is not a financial advisory service, and the information provided should not be considered investment or trading advice.