R. v. Tang
Australia High Court
25 BHRC 35, [2008] HCA 39 (2008)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Wei Tang (defendant) paid five Thai women to enter Australia illegally. To reimburse Tang, the women signed six-month contracts obliging them to pay off their so-called debt by working as unpaid prostitutes in Tang’s brothel. The women surrendered their passports and return airfares, which Tang retained for the duration of the women’s contracts. Prosecutors acting in the name of Australia’s head of state (the Queen of England, that is, Regina, or R.) obtained Tang’s conviction for violating Australia’s law against slavery, which had never been legal in Australia. Section 270.1 of the law defined slavery as “the condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, including where such a condition results from a debt or contract made by the person.” Section 270.3 of the law made it a crime to intentionally possess a slave or exercise the powers described in § 270.1. An intermediate appellate court found that the requisite element of intent had not been proved and reversed Tang’s conviction. The prosecutors appealed to Australia’s High Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
