Skip to the story
All stories

Uncle Robbie Thorpe's genocide case against King Charles rejected

Australian court rules monarch has common law immunity, activist plans international appeal.

AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made

Published Updated
Robbie Thorpe speaks outside the Victoria state Supreme Court of Appeal in Melbourne, Australia, on June 3, 2026. (AP Photo/Rod McGuirk, File)

What this story says

  • Three Australian appellate judges rejected activist Uncle Robbie Thorpe's attempt to prosecute King Charles III for alleged genocide.
  • Thorpe's case argued the King, Australian government, and institutions perpetuate genocide through systemic disadvantage of Indigenous people.
  • The judges cited the King's common law immunity, a principle likely inherited by Australia from the UK.
  • Thorpe intends to take his allegations to the International Criminal Court if domestic legal avenues are exhausted.

Who covered it

Left 22%(13)Centre 71%(42)Right 7%(4)

Percentages are shares of the 59 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 4 of the 63 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .

Trust

50/100

Craft

60/100

Hype

40/100

63 sources · methodology

Missing from the right

Only 4 of the 59 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.

A reader who follows the right would not have seen this. We report the absence rather than explain it: outlets choose what to cover for many reasons, and we have no evidence about which one applies here.

An activist's effort to prosecute King Charles III for genocide has been rejected by three Australian appellate judges. Uncle Robbie Thorpe, an elder of the Krautatungalung people, sought to bring charges against the monarch, the Australian government, and various institutions. His case alleged that these entities perpetuate genocide by maintaining systems that disadvantage Indigenous people, who comprise about four per cent of Australia's population and experience poorer socioeconomic outcomes.

The Victoria state's Court of Appeal ruled against Thorpe, leaving him with a final domestic recourse: seeking permission to appeal to the High Court of Australia. Thorpe has faced legal defeats since initiating the private prosecution in 2023. He stated that he did not anticipate a fair hearing in Australia and plans to present his allegations to the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.

Disagreement on legal basis

CTV News reported that the British monarch possesses common law immunity in the UK, a protection likely inherited by Australia. Sydney University constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey, as cited by CTV News, stated this immunity extends to personal acts outside official power. CTV News also noted that the International Criminal Court does not recognise head of state immunity and has jurisdiction over genocide, but does not permit private prosecutions. International lawyer Don Rothwell, quoted by CTV News, explained that individuals cannot commence a prosecution at the ICC; they can only provide evidence for the Office of the Prosecutor to consider.

What the coverage left out

None of the right-rated digests mention the specific socioeconomic outcomes for Indigenous Australians that Thorpe's case cited as evidence of systemic disadvantage. None of the centre-rated digests mention the specific socioeconomic outcomes for Indigenous Australians that Thorpe's case cited as evidence of systemic disadvantage.

Coverage settled. We checked this 81 times and stopped on 3 Oct 2026, 19:15. The figures above are what it finished at.

How each side covered it

Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.

Left

13 rated outlets

  • Left-rated reports focused on the rejection of Uncle Robbie Thorpe's bid to prosecute King Charles III for genocide. Multiple digests noted the ruling by three Australian appellate judges and the activist's intention to pursue the case internationally. The digests from Stuff and The Border Mail, among others, highlighted Thorpe's plan to take his allegations to the International Criminal Court. Several left-rated digests, including those from Newser, The Seattle Times, and ABC News, stated that the activist's bid was rejected. The digests from The Independent and The Independent (US) also mentioned the activist's plan to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The Border Mail and The Canberra Times digests reported that Australia is 'in denial' after the king's criminal case failed.

Centre

42 rated outlets

  • Centre-rated outlets reported that Australian appellate judges rejected activist Uncle Robbie Thorpe's bid to prosecute King Charles III for genocide. The ruling by Victoria state's Court of Appeal leaves Thorpe with a final domestic option to seek permission to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
  • CTV News, which published a full report, stated Thorpe alleges the King, the Australian government, and its institutions are perpetuating genocide. It noted Indigenous Australians face worse socioeconomic outcomes. The report also detailed the King's common law immunity in the UK and Australia.
  • Several centre-rated outlets noted Thorpe's intention to take his allegations to the International Criminal Court. CTV News reported that the ICC does not recognise head of state immunity but that individuals cannot launch private prosecutions there.

Right

4 rated outlets

  • Right-rated reports focused on the rejection of Uncle Robbie Thorpe's attempt to prosecute King Charles III for alleged genocide. Digests from The Washington Times and GB News stated that Australian appellate judges rejected the activist's bid. The digests from PerthNow and The West Australian, also rated right, reported that Australia is 'in denial' after the king's criminal case failed and that the activist hopes to take the fight to an international court.

Questions about this coverage

How did the left and right cover Uncle Robbie Thorpe's genocide case against King Charles rejected?
Of the 59 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 22% are rated left, 71% are rated centre, 7% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 63. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
Is Uncle Robbie Thorpe's genocide case against King Charles rejected left or right?
The story itself is neither. What can be counted is who has covered it, and 71% of the 59 rated outlets on it are rated centre — so far this is a story carried mostly by the centre. Coverage of this one has settled, so that is unlikely to move much now.
Is the coverage of Uncle Robbie Thorpe's genocide case against King Charles rejected biased?
Uncle Robbie Thorpe's genocide case against King Charles rejected is one event reported by 63 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
Which side is not reporting Uncle Robbie Thorpe's genocide case against King Charles rejected?
When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
Which outlets covered Uncle Robbie Thorpe's genocide case against King Charles rejected?
63 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
Why was Uncle Robbie Thorpe's case against King Charles rejected?
Three Australian appellate judges rejected the case, citing the King's common law immunity. This legal protection is a principle likely inherited by Australia from the United Kingdom, shielding the monarch from prosecution.
What are Uncle Robbie Thorpe's next steps?
Thorpe has one final domestic legal option: seeking permission to appeal to the High Court of Australia. If he exhausts his domestic legal avenues, he plans to take his allegations of genocide to the International Criminal Court.
What was the basis of Thorpe's genocide allegations?
Thorpe's case alleged that King Charles, the Australian government, and its institutions perpetuate genocide by maintaining systems that disadvantage Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians experience worse socioeconomic outcomes compared to other Australians.

Read it at the source

63 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.

Left

13
Show 5 more

Centre

42
Show 34 more

Right

4

Not rated

4

How did this read?

About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.

Uncle Robbie Thorpe case rejected | MediaBias News