Australian Court Dismisses Bid to Prosecute King Charles for Genocide

Three Australian appellate judges on Monday rejected an activist’s bid to prosecute Britain’s King Charles III over alleged genocide of Indigenous people.

The Victoria Court of Appeal ruling leaves Uncle Robbie Thorpe with one final domestic recourse: seeking leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, which accepts roughly 10% of applications.

Indigenous Australians use the titles “uncle” and “aunt” as marks of respect for elders.

Thorpe, 68, a Krautatungalung elder, said Monday he does not expect a fair hearing in Australia and will take his allegations against the monarch to the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands after exhausting domestic options.

“The International Criminal Court will expose Australia for what it really is — a lying, racist, illegal occupation committing genocide,” Thorpe said.

Monday’s decision marks Thorpe’s third legal defeat since he began attempting a private prosecution against the monarch in Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in 2023.

His case alleges the king, Australia’s head of state, along with the government and institutions, is perpetuating genocide by maintaining systems that disadvantage Indigenous people across socioeconomic measures.

Indigenous Australians constitute about 4% 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.

The British monarch enjoys full criminal and civil immunity in the United Kingdom, a protection broader than that of a U.S. president because it covers personal acts outside official power, according to Sydney University constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey.

The king’s common law immunity in Britain has likely transferred to Australia, a former colony that still recognizes the monarch as head of state, Twomey said, adding she is unaware of the immunity ever being tested in Australia.

While the British and Australian parliaments could legislate to alter immunity, the monarch also heads states including Canada and New Zealand and is entitled to sovereign immunity under customary international law and Australian statutes such as the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 and the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967.

The International Criminal Court does not recognize head of state immunity and has jurisdiction to prosecute genocide.

However, an individual like Thorpe cannot launch a private prosecution at the ICC as he attempted in a low-level Australian court.

The U.N. Security Council can refer prosecutions, but Britain would veto any move against King Charles, according to Australian National University international lawyer Don Rothwell.

The most common path is for individuals to alert the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor to evidence, as occurred in cases against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“An individual cannot commence a prosecution. If they’ve exhausted all options under Australian law, the best they can do is provide evidence they believe constitutes genocide. It’s then up to the International Criminal Court to determine whether to prosecute,” Rothwell said.

Source link