September 30, 2026 - Interest of Justice
Victoria’s Court of Appeal ruled September 28 that Uncle Robbie Thorpe can’t privately prosecute the King for Genocide.
King Charles genocide bid rejected in Australia, leaves only 2 options open:
Australia's federal genocide law needs the Attorney-General's consent, the High Court is the last domestic door, and the ICC Prosecutor is the only door after that.
No private citizen can file at the International Criminal Court unless a prosecutor will take it on - Will they do it?
Three judges on Victoria’s Court of Appeal unanimously refused on Monday, September 28, to let Uncle Robbie Thorpe privately prosecute King Charles III for genocide, finding the case did not have a real prospect of success. Thorpe is a 68-year-old elder of the Krautatungalung people, and he’s been trying to bring this charge since 2023.
King Charles could be taken to the International Criminal Court by this indigenous Australian man
Activist Uncle Robbie Thorpe’s case had a legal setback this week but he’s vowed not to give up
Some headlines, Worcester News among them, say the case has reached the international criminal court. It hasn’t. Thorpe says the ICC is his next stop, but what stands between him and The Hague is less easy than the headlines suggest.
What Thorpe argued and how each door sadly closed. He says the King, as Australia’s head of state, and Australian institutions keep up systems that disadvantage Indigenous people on health, employment and imprisonment, and that the Crown failed to prevent genocide and failed to punish anyone for it. He points to policies going back to 1788, including language suppression and the removal of children.
His charge rested on three legal sources at once, so Supreme Court of Victoria Justice Melinda Richards took them one at a time when she refused to let the prosecution be issued in February 2025.
The first ruling came from Supreme Court of Victoria Justice Melinda Richards, who refused to let the prosecution be issued in February 2025 for four reasons.
A Victorian magistrate can’t apply First Peoples’ sovereign law. (big one)
Genocide isn’t a crime under Victorian common law.
The 1948 Genocide Convention was never written into Victorian law.
Division 268 of the federal Criminal Code does make genocide a crime, and has since September 1, 2002, but a prosecution needs the Attorney-General’s consent first.
So Australia does have a genocide law. Thorpe filed in a state court, where the state-law routes were dead ends, and the federal offence is the one that counts. It has a gate, and the Attorney-General holding it sits in the same government Thorpe is accusing of Genocide.
That makes three losses. Then there’s the King himself. Constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey told reporters the immunity he holds in the UK has likely been inherited by Australia, though she’s unaware of any Australian court ever ruling on it. So the shield is assumed and untested, and it still works. Very convenient if you’re the defendant.
Immunity for heads of state exists for a reason. Without it, any leader could be hauled into court daily by anyone with a grievance, and governing would stop. IoJ understands that. It also means a person who sincerely believes a genocide has happened, and who follows every rule the courts set, ends up with a filing fee and no hearing.
The odds, in order. The last door in Australia is special leave to appeal to the High Court, which accepts about 10 percent of applications. That’s the rate for getting heard at all, and a win would still have to get past the immunity.
After that comes the ICC, and no private citizen can file a case there. Legal expert Don Rothwell put it this way, “An individual cannot commence a prosecution.” The most Thorpe can do is hand evidence to the Office of the Prosecutor, and as Rothwell added, “It’s then up to the International Criminal Court to determine whether they would seek to prosecute.” To be clear, multiple credible ICC complaints were filed over covid crimes against humanity (ours included) and the ICC did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
The Rome Statute does remove head-of-state immunity in Article 27, and both the UK and Australia are member states. So this is the one forum where the Crown’s protection doesn’t apply. Two other parts of the same treaty are in his way. Article 11 limits the court to crimes committed after the treaty took effect for the country involved, which for Australia was 2002, and Article 6 requires intent to destroy a group “in whole or in part,” which is a hard thing to prove from socioeconomic gaps. Thorpe says the Australian judgments cleared the decks for the ICC. Reading the statute, IoJ sees a long road.
The ICC isn’t a UN body, but Article 115 funds it with assessed contributions from member states and, when the General Assembly approves, money from the UN. Draw your own conclusions about how eager it’ll be to chase the head of state of two of its own members.
A 2024 bill proposed removing the Attorney-General's gate on genocide prosecutions, and IoJ couldn't find where it stands. If you live in Australia, ask your MP, and don't accept "it's being looked at" for an answer.
Genocide law means nothing without a court that has real force behind it and the backbone to apply it to whoever stands accused. Without that, the only alternatives are rogue action or nothing. A healthy society needs courts that can hear the hardest claims, and right now a claim this serious sadly can’t get a hearing anywhere in the broken lawless system. Genocide claims should be heard and this is sad news for the Krautatungalung people.
Law matters, but LACK OF LAW apparently matters the most in cases like this!!!!
Having a genocide law on the books and being able to use it are two different things. Australia has the federal offence, and the Attorney-General holds the key. V as Justice Richards found, doesn't make genocide a crime at all,ictorian law, and a state offence might open another route, though the King's immunity would still be waiting at the end of it. IoJ wants the Attorney-General's gate gone and wants Victoria to write its own genocide law. Genocide law means nothing without a court that has real force behind it and the backbone to apply it to whoever stands accused, and right now a claim this serious can't get a hearing anywhere in the chain.
IoJ will be watching for Thorpe’s High Court application & praying.
— Lady Xylie, Interest of Justice founder
If you find this publication & non profit work to be meaningful, you are invited to support as a paid subscriber or donor to help, including our own lawsuits against covid crimes to continue.
Supporting good lawsuits makes a very real difference!
Related Reading:
HUGE Experimentation Lawsuit Filed — DoD, HHS, FDA sued in landmark case against experimentation on civilians using biological-agent Covid “vaccines” (the pinned lawsuit explainer)
The Most Important Authority On The Matter Of Genocide and International Law: Professor Chabas Gives Best Lecture Ever On New Hopeful Legal Developments walks through the Genocide Convention and the open cases
Genocide vs Crimes Against Humanity - Proving PCR Pandemics and The W.H.O. COVID Crimes Against Humanity Is A Moral Duty for how international law defines genocide against crimes against humanity
ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant asks how the ICC’s rulings get enforced
Countries Vow To Arrest Netanyahu, While Others Vow To Protect Him on the ICC and head-of-state protection in practice
Canada as well as Australia need to get away from the UK we give this statistic King a lot of money to say we are under the commonwealth and is is way past time to stand alone without the UK influence which is worse than our almost as bad countries
Every country that signed the Genocide convention is required to actively take measures to PREVENT genocide. In Canada the indigenous people were among the first to be singled out to receive (special?) batches of the Convid injection, and the data showed a reduction in life expectancy when compared to non-indigenous folks shortly after that. https://locallibertyletter.substack.com/p/unmarked-graves-the-graves-have-not
That's a clear signal and should've been examined by Canadian authorities in order to prevent genocide. They failed to do so. Perhaps this is an avenue to explore and file a lawsuit in a lower court?
God bless Uncle Robbie