What to know as bid to prosecute King Charles reaches international court

A legal bid by Indigenous Australian activist and elder Robbie Thorpe to prosecute King Charles III has reached an international stage after his latest attempt was dismissed by an Australian court.

Three judges at Victoria’s Court of Appeal rejected Thorpe’s private prosecution against the monarch, leaving him with one remaining avenue within Australia: applying to the High Court for permission to appeal.

In this article, Tribune Online presents key things to know about the case:

Thorpe has pursued the case since 2023

Thorpe, a 68-year-old elder of the Krautatungalung people, has been trying since 2023 to bring legal proceedings against King Charles in Melbourne.

His case alleges that the King, alongside Australian government institutions, was perpetrating genocide through systems that disadvantage Indigenous Australians.

Monday’s ruling was his third legal defeat since he began attempting to bring the case before the courts.

The case could still be taken to Australia’s High Court

The latest ruling does not completely end Thorpe’s options in Australia.

He can seek permission to appeal to the country’s High Court, although ABC News reported that the court accepts only a small proportion of applications for leave to appeal.

King Charles is Australia’s head of state as well as the King of the United Kingdom. He also has a house locally in the Cotswolds.

Thorpe says he plans to pursue the matter internationally

Following the Court of Appeal decision, Thorpe indicated that he intended to take his allegations beyond Australia’s domestic courts.

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

King Charles may have legal immunity

Legal experts cited by ABC News and the Associated Press said the British monarch has extensive immunity from criminal and civil liability in the United Kingdom.

Constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey of Sydney University said the protection is likely to have been inherited by Australia, although she said she was unaware of the issue having previously been tested in an Australian court.

The reports also highlighted the wider circumstances behind Thorpe’s allegations. Indigenous Australians account for around four per cent of the country’s population and, according to official statistics cited by ABC News and AP, experience poorer health outcomes, lower life expectancy and higher rates of unemployment and imprisonment than other Australians.

The International Criminal Court cannot be directly activated by an individual

Although the International Criminal Court does not recognise immunity for heads of state, individuals cannot independently initiate prosecutions before the court.

International law expert Don Rothwell of the Australian National University explained that a person can instead provide evidence to the court’s prosecutors for consideration.

He said: “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.”

(Oxford Mail)