Legal Research
Cases
R v Wei Tang

R v Wei Tang

Case [2007] VSCA 134 27 June 2007

Constitutional Validity

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No. 178 of 2006
THE QUEEN	v.
WEI TANG

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, BUCHANAN and EAMES JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	20 March and 19 April 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 June 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 134	1^st Revision, 2 July 2007

---

Constitutional law (C’th) – Powers of Commonwealth Parliament – External affairs – International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery (1926) – Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (1956) – Implementation of treaty by legislation regulating conduct in Australia – Criminal Code Act 1995, Chapter 8, Offences against Humanity, s 270 – Whether legislation within power – The Constitution s 51(xxix).

Criminal law – Conviction – Slavery – Possess a slave – Use a slave – Elements of offences – Direction to jury.

Criminal law – Conduct of trial – Judicial intervention in cross-examination by defence counsel.

Criminal law – Directions – Balance – Comments as to address by defence counsel.

Criminal law – Conviction – Whether verdicts unreasonable and not supported by evidence – Convictions quashed – Proviso – Whether verdicts of acquittal or re-trial appropriate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms R E Carlin with Dr S P Donaghue	Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)
For the Applicant	Mr S A Shirrefs SC with Ms K L Walker	Slades & Parsons

MAXWELL P:

I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Eames JA. I agree with his Honour’s conclusions and would join in the proposed orders, for the reasons which his Honour gives.

BUCHANAN JA:

In my opinion the application for leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal allowed and the convictions quashed and sentences set aside, for the reasons stated by Eames JA.

EAMES JA:

The applicant, Wei Tang, was convicted by verdicts of a jury in the County Court on five counts of possessing a slave contrary to s 270.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and on five counts of using a slave contrary to the same provision. The applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and, pursuant to s 19AB(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), a single non-parole period of six years was fixed. Application is now made for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

We were told that these were the first convictions in Australia, by verdict of a jury, under these provisions of the Code. The provisions which are of immediate relevance are to be found in Chapter 8 which deals with “Offences against humanity”.

“270.1 Definition of slavery
For the purposes of this Division, slavery is 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.

270.2 Slavery…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Wei Tang

Details

AGLC: R v Wei Tang [2007] VSCA 134
Case: [2007] VSCA 134
Decision Date: 27 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wei Tang, the appellant was convicted on several counts relating to slavery offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining the constitutionality of the legislation, the conduct of the trial, and the validity of the convictions. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the legislation that implemented the international conventions aimed at suppressing slavery, contending that it exceeded the Commonwealth's external affairs power under section 51(xxix) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the appellant argued that certain judicial interventions during the trial, including directions to the jury and comments on the defence counsel's address, were prejudicial and resulted in unreasonable verdicts.

The court considered whether the Commonwealth had the power to enact legislation implementing the international conventions, and if the legislation was within the scope of the external affairs power. The court also examined the conduct of the trial, specifically whether the judicial interventions amounted to an improper influence on the jury's decision-making process. Additionally, the court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions and whether the verdicts were unreasonable.

The court held that the legislation was valid as it was reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implement the international conventions. The court also found that the judicial interventions did not prejudice the fairness of the trial, as the trial judge's comments were balanced and did not improperly influence the jury. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the verdicts were not unreasonable. Consequently, the convictions were upheld.

No further orders were made by the court, and the convictions remained in place. The court's decision affirmed the validity of the slavery offences legislation and upheld the appellant's convictions.

Orders