The Queen v Tang [2008] HCA 39

The Queen v Tang [2008] HCA 39

Slavery under s 270.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Cth) is not limited to chattel slavery but encompasses the exercise of any of the powers attaching to the right of ownership, de facto, over a person. For conviction, the prosecution need only prove that the accused intentionally possessed or used the complainant as a slave according to this definition; knowledge or belief as to legal rights or the source of power is not required. The directions given at trial were not inadequate in failing to require an intention regarding the legal basis of the power exercised. The orders of the Court of Appeal were set aside and the convictions restored.

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: Wei Tang
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal on first and second grounds dismissed. Cross-appeal on third ground refused.
Legal Topics
Slavery, Sexual Servitude, Jury Directions, Fault Elements in Criminal Law, External Affairs Power, Implementation of Treaties, Interpretation of Criminal Statutes
Criminal Law Constitutional Law International Law Slavery Sexual Servitude Jury Directions Fault Elements in Criminal Law External Affairs Power +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

Wei Tang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether offences under s 270.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Cth) are constitutionally valid and apply to the facts alleged
  2. 2 Whether s 270.3(1)(a) is limited to 'chattel slavery' or includes broader de facto slavery
  3. 3 Proper fault element and mental state required for intentionally possessing or using a slave under the Code

Ratio Decidendi

Slavery under s 270.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Cth) is not limited to chattel slavery but encompasses the exercise of any of the powers attaching to the right of ownership, de facto, over a person. For conviction, the prosecution need only prove that the accused intentionally possessed or used the complainant as a slave according to this definition; knowledge or belief as to legal rights or the source of power is not required. The directions given at trial were not inadequate in failing to require an intention regarding the legal basis of the power exercised. The orders of the Court of Appeal were set aside and the convictions restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal on first and second grounds dismissed. Cross-appeal on third ground refused.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Special leave to cross-appeal on first and second grounds granted; cross-appeal on those grounds dismissed.