A legal challenge against King Charles III over alleged genocide against Indigenous Australians has been dismissed by an appellate court, marking a setback for activist Roby Torp. The court ruled on Sept. 28, 2026, that Torp’s attempt to initiate criminal proceedings against the monarch was rejected.
King Charles III Immunity Case Faces Legal Dead End in Australia
Torp, a Krautungalung elder, had argued that Charles III’s role as Australia’s head of state, together with the Australian government and state institutions, continues to maintain a system that puts Indigenous people at a disadvantage in many socioeconomic indicators, thereby continuing genocide. His case, which began in 2023, claimed the monarch’s authority enabled these conditions for Indigenous Australians, who comprise about 4% of the population. According to official statistics, Indigenous Australians face shorter lifespans, poorer health outcomes, and higher incarceration rates or unemployment than other Australian residents.
Sovereign Immunity Blocks Legal Action
The British monarch has immunity from any criminal and civil liability in the United Kingdom, a principle that is most likely inherited in Australia. This immunity extends to both official and personal actions, according to Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert at the University of Sydney. “The monarch’s immunity is broader than that of the U.S. president,” Twomey said, noting the 1985 Foreign States Immunities Act and 1967 Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act.
Twomey noted that she is not aware of any case where the monarch’s immunity based on prerogative rights has been tested in an Australian court.
International Criminal Court Faces Hurdles
Torp has since announced plans to turn to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Netherlands, alleging that Australia is a “lying, racist and illegal occupation that is carrying out genocide.” However, legal barriers remain. While the ICC does not recognize head of state immunity and has jurisdiction to examine allegations of genocide, a private person, such as Torp, cannot initiate criminal proceedings at the ICC in the same way he attempted in the lower Australian court.
Historical Context and Ongoing Debate
Australia continues to recognize the British monarch as its head of state.
“The International Criminal Court will reveal Australia for what it really is — a lying, racist and illegal occupation that is carrying out genocide,” Torp said.
What’s Next for the Case?
Torp has one remaining opportunity at the state level — to request permission to appeal the judgment in the High Court of Australia, though the court accepts only about 10% of such applications.