The King has received a wave of public support after an Australian court rejected an attempt to bring a private prosecution against him.
Three judges at the Court of Appeal in Victoria dismissed an application brought by Indigenous activist and elder Robbie Thorpe, who has been attempting since 2023 to bring legal proceedings against the King in Melbourne.
Mr Thorpe’s case alleged that the King, alongside Australian government institutions, was responsible for genocide through systems which disadvantage Indigenous Australians.
The latest ruling represents his third legal defeat in his efforts to bring the case before the courts.
However, Mr Thorpe has indicated that he intends to continue pursuing the matter and could seek permission to appeal to Australia’s High Court.
The High Court accepts only a small proportion of applications for leave to appeal, according to ABC News.
The case has also prompted considerable reaction online, with members of the public expressing support for the King following the court’s decision.
One user on X wrote: “The King of Australia literally can’t be prosecuted in Australia, I’m not sure how this even got to a court at all.”
Another questioned how the case had been allowed to proceed, describing the situation as “absurd and outrageous”.
A third commentator said: “You can’t prosecute someone who had no involvement in that crime.”
Legal experts have also highlighted the significant constitutional and legal protections surrounding the King.
The King is Australia’s head of state as well as the United Kingdom’s sovereign, and legal experts quoted by ABC News and the Associated Press said the British monarch enjoys extensive immunity from criminal and civil liability in the UK.
Constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney said that protection is likely to have been inherited by Australia, although she noted that she was unaware of the question previously having been tested in an Australian court.
Mr Thorpe, 68, is an elder of the Krautatungalung people. Following the latest judgment, he said he intended to pursue the matter internationally.
He said the International Criminal Court would “expose Australia” over his allegations.
However, international law expert Don Rothwell of the Australian National University explained that an individual cannot personally commence a prosecution before the International Criminal Court.
Instead, individuals can submit evidence to prosecutors for consideration.
“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,” he said.
It would then be for the International Criminal Court to decide whether there was a basis for pursuing a prosecution.
The court does not recognise immunity for heads of state, but that does not mean an individual can simply initiate proceedings against a head of state themselves.
For now, the Australian court’s ruling leaves Mr Thorpe with the possibility of seeking permission to take his case to the country’s highest court.
