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

Robbie Thorpe speaks outside the Victoria state Supreme Court of Appeal in Melbourne, Australia, on June 3, 2026. (AP Photo/Rod McGuirk, File)
Photograph: CTV News (embedded from source)
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
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- Indigenous Elder Plans To Take King Charles to International Court Over Alleged Genocide in Australia (opens IBTimes UK in a new tab)
IBTimes UK — is IBTimes UK biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Robbie Thorpe Loses Appeal in Genocide Case Against King Charles III (opens tempo.co in a new tab)
- Elder loses bid to appeal ruling on genocide against King Charles (opens ABC Australia in a new tab)
ABC Australia — is ABC Australia biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Court: No, King Charles Can't Be Prosecuted for Genocide (opens Newser in a new tab)
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide (opens Stuff in a new tab)
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute Britain’s King Charles for genocide (opens St Catharines Standard in a new tab)
St Catharines Standard — is St Catharines Standard biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute Britain’s King Charles for genocide (opens The Seattle Times in a new tab)
The Seattle Times — is The Seattle Times biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide (opens Associated Press News in a new tab)
Associated Press News — is Associated Press News biased? Our profile of this outlet
Show 5 more
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide (opens The Independent (US) in a new tab)
The Independent (US) — is The Independent (US) biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide (opens The Independent in a new tab)
The Independent — is The Independent biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australian court rejects bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide (opens ABC News in a new tab)
- Australia 'in denial' after king's criminal case fails (opens The Canberra Times in a new tab)
The Canberra Times — is The Canberra Times biased? Our profile of this outletOpinion
- Australia 'in denial' after king's criminal case fails (opens The Border Mail in a new tab)
The Border Mail — is The Border Mail biased? Our profile of this outletOpinion
Centre
42- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens burytimes.co.uk in a new tab)
burytimes.co.uk — is burytimes.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Salisbury Journal in a new tab)
Salisbury Journal — is Salisbury Journal biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens andoveradvertiser.co.uk in a new tab)
andoveradvertiser.co.uk — is andoveradvertiser.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens hampshirechronicle.co.uk in a new tab)
hampshirechronicle.co.uk — is hampshirechronicle.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Basingstoke Gazette in a new tab)
Basingstoke Gazette — is Basingstoke Gazette biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Leader Live in a new tab)
Leader Live — is Leader Live biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens North Wales Chronicle in a new tab)
North Wales Chronicle — is North Wales Chronicle biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens rhyljournal.co.uk in a new tab)
rhyljournal.co.uk — is rhyljournal.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
Show 34 more
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens denbighshirefreepress.co.uk in a new tab)
denbighshirefreepress.co.uk — is denbighshirefreepress.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australian court rejects appeal seeking action against King Charles (opens gossipslife.com in a new tab)
gossipslife.com — is gossipslife.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Daily Echo in a new tab)
Daily Echo — is Daily Echo biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Telegraph & Argus in a new tab)
Telegraph & Argus — is Telegraph & Argus biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens The Argus in a new tab)
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Hereford Times in a new tab)
Hereford Times — is Hereford Times biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk in a new tab)
thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk — is thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens News & Star in a new tab)
News & Star — is News & Star biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens The Mail in a new tab)
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens The Press in a new tab)
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens gazetteherald.co.uk in a new tab)
gazetteherald.co.uk — is gazetteherald.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens bracknellnews.co.uk in a new tab)
bracknellnews.co.uk — is bracknellnews.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens bucksfreepress.co.uk in a new tab)
bucksfreepress.co.uk — is bucksfreepress.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens readingchronicle.co.uk in a new tab)
readingchronicle.co.uk — is readingchronicle.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens sloughobserver.co.uk in a new tab)
sloughobserver.co.uk — is sloughobserver.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- This indigenous Australian man vows to take King Charles to the International Criminal Court (opens The LADbible in a new tab)
The LADbible — is The LADbible biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens theboltonnews.co.uk in a new tab)
theboltonnews.co.uk — is theboltonnews.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens The Northern Echo in a new tab)
The Northern Echo — is The Northern Echo biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens eveshamjournal.co.uk in a new tab)
eveshamjournal.co.uk — is eveshamjournal.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Malvern Gazette in a new tab)
Malvern Gazette — is Malvern Gazette biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Worcester News in a new tab)
Worcester News — is Worcester News biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens cotswoldjournal.co.uk in a new tab)
cotswoldjournal.co.uk — is cotswoldjournal.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Wilts & Gloucestershire Standard in a new tab)
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Stroud News & Journal in a new tab)
Stroud News & Journal — is Stroud News & Journal biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Gazette & Herald in a new tab)
Gazette & Herald — is Gazette & Herald biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Wiltshire Times in a new tab)
Wiltshire Times — is Wiltshire Times biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Swindon Advertiser in a new tab)
Swindon Advertiser — is Swindon Advertiser biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens Oxford Mail in a new tab)
Oxford Mail — is Oxford Mail biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute King Charles for genocide (opens CTV News in a new tab)
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute Britain’s King Charles for genocide (opens My Mother Lode in a new tab)
My Mother Lode — is My Mother Lode biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide (opens Winnipeg Free Press in a new tab)
Winnipeg Free Press — is Winnipeg Free Press biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australian court rejects activist's bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide (opens Newsday in a new tab)
- Australian court rejects activist’s bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide (opens Chronicle Online in a new tab)
Chronicle Online — is Chronicle Online biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australia 'in denial' after king's criminal case fails (opens PerthNow in a new tab)
Right
4- Claim Submitted: Activist Accuses King Charles of Genocide (opens FOCUS online in a new tab)
FOCUS online — is FOCUS online biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Australian court rejects activist's bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide (opens Washington Times in a new tab)
Washington Times — is Washington Times biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Activist trying to prosecute King Charles for alleged genocide has appeal rejected by courts (opens GB News in a new tab)
- Australia 'in denial' after king's criminal case fails (opens The West Australian in a new tab)
The West Australian — is The West Australian biased? Our profile of this outletOpinion
Not rated
4- The Case Against King Charles, Blocked in Court. The Court of Appeal in Australia Has Rejected the Indictment of the Monarch for Genocide (opens jurnalul.ro in a new tab)
jurnalul.ro — is jurnalul.ro biased? Our profile of this outlet
- King Charles at the International Criminal Court? Indigenous Australian Accuses Him of Genocide (opens gazzetta.gr in a new tab)
gazzetta.gr — is gazzetta.gr biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Bid to prosecute King Charles III reaches international court (opens thisisoxfordshire.co.uk in a new tab)
thisisoxfordshire.co.uk — is thisisoxfordshire.co.uk biased? Our profile of this outlet
- What's Going on with the Open Genocide Process Against King Charles? (opens Mediafax in a new tab)
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.
![Dr Hussam Abu Safia was captured by the Israeli army in December 2024 during a raid on Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza [Screengrab/Al Jazeera]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-29-at-12.43.30-PM-1-1761731504.jpg?resize=1920%2C1440)

