R v Tang

R v Tang[1] is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Wei Tang, the operator of a Melbourne brothel, convicted for slavery. The case was the first criminal conviction for a slavery offence in Australia and was significant for establishing the modern legal definition of slavery and has been described as "the most crucial test of the effectiveness of our criminal laws against … slavery ever to come before an Australian court." [2]

R v Tang
Court	High Court of Australia
Decided	28 August 2008
Citation(s)	[2008] HCA 39, (2008) 237 CLR 1
Case history
Prior action(s)	[2007] VSCA 134, (2007) 16 VR 454 [2007] VSCA 144
Appealed from	Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal
Subsequent action(s)	[2009] VSCA 182, (2009) 23 VR 332
Case opinions
6:1 the prosecution did not need to prove that Ms Tang knew or believed that the women were slaves
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ

Tang was convicted in 2006 of 5 counts of intentionally possessing a slave and 5 counts of intentionally exercising a power of ownership over a slave, contrary to section 270.3(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. She was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years. Ms Tang was the first person convicted under the anti-slavery laws, introduced in 1999. The charges related to five women, all Thai nationals.[1]

The Victorian Court of Appeal held that the judge's directions to the jury were inadequate,[3] quashed the convictions and ordered that Tang be retried.[4]

The prosecution was given special leave to appeal to the High Court. Tang was given special leave to cross appeal on the meaning and constitutional validity of section 270.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The majority of the High Court, Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ, upheld the prosecutions appeal, holding that the prosecution did not need to prove that Ms Tang knew or believed that the women were slaves. Tang's appeal on the meaning and validity of the legislation was dismissed. Kirby J dissented.[1]

The matter was remitted to the Victorian Court of Appeal to consider Tang's appeal against her sentence.[1] The Victorian Court of Appeal upheld her appeal against sentence and Tang was re-sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 5 years.[5]