Slavery offences under Australian law concern the exercise of powers over another person that resemble the powers of ownership. The focus is on the substance of the relationship and the control exercised, rather than whether anyone claims a legally recognised right to own another person.
These offences are addressed in Division 270 of the Criminal Code, contained in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
Section 270.1 defines slavery by reference to a person’s condition where any or all of the powers attaching to ownership are exercised over them. The definition expressly includes circumstances arising from a debt or contract.
A contractual arrangement does not, therefore, prevent a relationship from amounting to slavery. Equally, the existence of a debt or restrictive employment arrangement does not automatically establish the offence. The prosecution must prove the elements of the particular charge.
In R v Wei Tang (2007) 16 VR 454, Eames JA examined the meaning of ownership and possession when considering the statutory definition of slavery.
At paragraph [67], his Honour referred to the distinction between physically having something and asserting a right to possess it. Drawing on the work of legal scholar A M Honoré, the discussion considered exclusive control as a central feature of ownership.
However, this passage should be read alongside the subsequent High Court decision in The Queen v Tang [2008] HCA 39. The High Court allowed the prosecution’s appeal and restored the convictions, with the sentence appeal remitted to the Victorian Court of Appeal.
No. Australian slavery offences do not require proof that the accused held a legally enforceable ownership right over another person.
The legislation addresses the actual exercise of powers associated with ownership. The relevant inquiry concerns what the accused did and the nature of the control exercised over the alleged victim.
This distinction matters because slavery can exist as a factual condition even though the law does not recognise a right to own another human being.
In Tang, relevant powers included treating people as objects of purchase, substantially unrestricted use of their labour, restricting their movements and taking the benefit of their services without commensurate compensation.
These matters illustrate the seriousness and extent of control relevant to the inquiry. They should not be treated as a checklist that automatically determines the outcome of every case.
The evidence must be assessed as a whole, including the practical operation of the relationship.
No. Exploitative employment, underpayment and unlawful working conditions can raise serious legal issues without necessarily satisfying the definition of slavery.
Australian law also creates separate offences involving forced labour, servitude, debt bondage and human trafficking. Each has its own requirements.
Identifying the precise allegation is essential. The prosecution must establish the offence charged, rather than relying on a general description of the relationship as unfair or exploitative.
The offences considered in Tang involved intentionally possessing a slave or intentionally exercising another power attaching to ownership.
The prosecution must establish the required fault element. However, it is not necessary to show that the accused correctly understood the legal definition of slavery or personally described their conduct using that term.
The distinction is between intending the relevant conduct and recognising its legal classification.
Slavery allegations can involve complex questions about control, intention, contractual arrangements and the circumstances of the alleged victim. They require careful examination of both the evidence and the statutory provisions.
George Sten & Co Criminal Lawyers can assess the allegations, explain the prosecution’s case and advise on the available defence options.
Call (02) 9261 8640 to arrange an appointment. For urgent legal assistance, call 0412 423 569.