Case Investigation: R v Tang (2008)
1. Provide a short description of the facts of the case
R v Tang (2008) was the first successful conviction under the federal anti-slavery laws. Wei
Tang, the operator of Melbourne brothel ‘Club 416,’ was found guilty of ‘possessing’ and
‘exercising ownership’ over five Thai women. The victims previously worked in the Thailand
sex industry and voluntarily entered deceptive contracts to work in Tang’s brothel. Upon
arrival into Australia, the women were forced into sexual servitude to repay fabricated debts
of around $45,000 which included their ‘purchase price,’ airfare and living expenses. The
women were unaware of the debt terms outlined in the contract and were vulnerable upon
arrival, lacked money, had limited English, and feared immigration authorities. While the
women were not held under lock and key, Tang confiscated their passports and return tickets,
heavily restricted their movements and forced them to work in inhumane conditions to repay
their ‘debts.’ Tang was arrested in 2003 and initially faced the Victorian County Court in
2006.
2. Clearly identify what the legal question/s or issue/s in the case are.
The central issues of the case included defining legal slavery in modern-day context and
deciding whether Tang’s actions amounted to the legal definition. The court investigated
whether Tang’s control over the victims constituted outright ownership. The court needed to
identify the elements of Tang’s slavery offence in a way that ensured consistency with
Australia’s international human rights obligations. Prior to R v Tang, Australia recognised the
prohibition of slavery but the legislation remained untested. Being a landmark case, the High
Court had to determine the indicia of slavery and the content and boundaries of the legal
definition while considering how to effectively develop an anti-slavery jurisprudence for
future cases in Australia.
, 3. Clearly identify the relevant legislation which was used in the case.
The key legislation used in R v Tang included Division 270 of the Criminal Code Act 1995
(Cth), which defines slavery as ‘the condition in which a person exercises powers of
ownership over another.’ Division 270 criminalises Tang’s possession and exploitation of
slaves and was employed by the courts to reinforce that slavery doesn’t require explicit
ownership to constitute legal slavery in modern Australia. Another relevant legislation
included the International Convention to Supress the Slave Trade and Slavery (1926) which
formed the basis of Australia’s anti-slavery laws and defines slavery as control over a
person’s autonomy and labour. Australia’s ratification of this treaty impacted the High
Court’s interpretation of modern-day slavery.
4. Discuss the legal process involved in the case.
The initial trial began in the Victorian County court in June 2006, where Tang was convicted
and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for 5 counts of intentionally possessing and
exercising ownership of a slave. A year later, Tang appealed her conviction in the Victorian
Court of Appeal in 2007, arguing that the judge erred in directing the jury on the legal
definition of slavery. The original conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal on the
basis that the jury was incapable of determining whether Tang’s control legally amounted to
ownership. The prosecution sought special appeal to the High Court of Australia, arguing that
the original conviction was valid. The High Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision
and reinstated Tang’s original conviction, ruling that her actions clearly constituted slavery
under the Australian Constitution. The case was returned to the Victorian Courts for
sentencing, where Tang’s original 10-year imprisonment with 6-year non-parole period
remained in place.
1. Provide a short description of the facts of the case
R v Tang (2008) was the first successful conviction under the federal anti-slavery laws. Wei
Tang, the operator of Melbourne brothel ‘Club 416,’ was found guilty of ‘possessing’ and
‘exercising ownership’ over five Thai women. The victims previously worked in the Thailand
sex industry and voluntarily entered deceptive contracts to work in Tang’s brothel. Upon
arrival into Australia, the women were forced into sexual servitude to repay fabricated debts
of around $45,000 which included their ‘purchase price,’ airfare and living expenses. The
women were unaware of the debt terms outlined in the contract and were vulnerable upon
arrival, lacked money, had limited English, and feared immigration authorities. While the
women were not held under lock and key, Tang confiscated their passports and return tickets,
heavily restricted their movements and forced them to work in inhumane conditions to repay
their ‘debts.’ Tang was arrested in 2003 and initially faced the Victorian County Court in
2006.
2. Clearly identify what the legal question/s or issue/s in the case are.
The central issues of the case included defining legal slavery in modern-day context and
deciding whether Tang’s actions amounted to the legal definition. The court investigated
whether Tang’s control over the victims constituted outright ownership. The court needed to
identify the elements of Tang’s slavery offence in a way that ensured consistency with
Australia’s international human rights obligations. Prior to R v Tang, Australia recognised the
prohibition of slavery but the legislation remained untested. Being a landmark case, the High
Court had to determine the indicia of slavery and the content and boundaries of the legal
definition while considering how to effectively develop an anti-slavery jurisprudence for
future cases in Australia.
, 3. Clearly identify the relevant legislation which was used in the case.
The key legislation used in R v Tang included Division 270 of the Criminal Code Act 1995
(Cth), which defines slavery as ‘the condition in which a person exercises powers of
ownership over another.’ Division 270 criminalises Tang’s possession and exploitation of
slaves and was employed by the courts to reinforce that slavery doesn’t require explicit
ownership to constitute legal slavery in modern Australia. Another relevant legislation
included the International Convention to Supress the Slave Trade and Slavery (1926) which
formed the basis of Australia’s anti-slavery laws and defines slavery as control over a
person’s autonomy and labour. Australia’s ratification of this treaty impacted the High
Court’s interpretation of modern-day slavery.
4. Discuss the legal process involved in the case.
The initial trial began in the Victorian County court in June 2006, where Tang was convicted
and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for 5 counts of intentionally possessing and
exercising ownership of a slave. A year later, Tang appealed her conviction in the Victorian
Court of Appeal in 2007, arguing that the judge erred in directing the jury on the legal
definition of slavery. The original conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal on the
basis that the jury was incapable of determining whether Tang’s control legally amounted to
ownership. The prosecution sought special appeal to the High Court of Australia, arguing that
the original conviction was valid. The High Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision
and reinstated Tang’s original conviction, ruling that her actions clearly constituted slavery
under the Australian Constitution. The case was returned to the Victorian Courts for
sentencing, where Tang’s original 10-year imprisonment with 6-year non-parole period
remained in place.
