The Commonwealth Offence of Slavery in Australia

Four ISIS-connected Australian women and nine children returned to Australia on 7 May 2026, after years of languishing in a Syrian refugee camp. And as authorities had promised, Australian federal police officers arrested, charged and remanded three of the adult women, and two of them were charged with the criminal offence of slavery, along with a crime against humanity.

Police allege that 53-year-old Victorian woman Kawsar Abbas travelled to Syria with her husband and children in 2014. So, she is one of the so-called ISIS brides. Abbas is said to have been complicit in the purchase of a Yazidi woman for US$10,000 to keep and use her as a slave. The other woman is 31-year-old Zeinab Ahmad, who travelled to Syria that same year and used the same slave.

The ABC has spoken to the Yazidi woman who claims she was used as a slave by both the two women now remanded in a Victorian prison, and the victim-survivor is willing to testify against them in court. The Yazidi are a Kurdish-speaking Indigenous people in northern Iraq, and over 2014 to 2017, ISIS or the Islamic State carried out a coordinated genocide against the Yazidi minority.

Both women have been charged with slavery under Australian federal law. They’ve also been charged with the crime against humanity of enslavement, contrary to section 268.10 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). This crime involves the accused allegedly exercising the right of ownership over another, and this was part of a broader systemic attack directed at an entire civilian population.

Abbas and Ahmed appeared in Melbourne Magistrates Court on 8 May 2026, and were expected to attempt bail, but their lawyers decided not to apply for conditional release at the last minute. And Ahmad is expected to appear next in court in early June, while Abbas will next appear mid-next month.

The crime of slavery

Abbas has been charged with three counts and Ahmad has been charged with one count of the crime of slavery under section 270.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

This international crime has universal jurisdiction, which means it can be committed in Australia or anywhere else across the planet but then it can be prosecuted in the Australian courts, and the offender can be of any nationality or background. So, local courts can prosecute an Australian citizen or resident or a foreign national over this crime.

This ability to prosecute the offence of slavery in an Australian court even when it has been committed elsewhere in the world is referred to as extended geographical jurisdiction – category D in the Criminal Code, and it sits under section 15.4.

There are five different forms of the crime of slavery, these include reducing a person to slavery, possessing a slave or exercising a right of ownership over one, engaging in slave trading, entering into a commercial transaction involving a slave or exercising control, direction over or providing finance for any act of slave trading or commercial transaction involving a slave.

Abbas’ three counts involve one count each of possess a slave and use a slave, contrary to subsection 270.3(a) of the Code, as well as one count of engaging in slave trading, under subsection 270.3(b), while Ahmad has been charged with one count of use a slave, contrary to subsection 270.3(a).

To prove both Abbas and Ahmad committed the crime of use a slave under subsection 270.3(a) of the Code, the prosecution will have to show that the women intentionally used a slave, which, as section 270.1 of the Code explains, involves an offender considering they hold ownership over another, in this case the Yazidi woman, and therefore, the enslaved person had to serve them.

For a prosecution to proceed, as in the case of these “ISIS brides”, when the alleged crime of slavery took place outside of Australia, the federal attorney general is required to sign off on the prosecution proceeding, as per section 270.3B of the Criminal Code.

However, Australian law enforcement can arrest, charge and remand an alleged slavery offender, who’s illegal acts occurred overseas, prior to any AG written approval.

The maximum penalty for any of the different forms of slavery under section 270.3 of the Criminal Code is 25 years imprisonment.

Defences against slavery offences

Section 270.11 of the Criminal Code stipulates that it is not a defence, and it cannot be argued in court by an accused that the person they’ve been charged in relation to an alleged slavery offence consented to or acquiesced to the conduct that constitutes the slavery elements of the offence.

Subsection 270.3(4) does provide a defence, which involves the accused arguing that they engaged in the conduct of which they’ve been charged in relation to as the crime of slavery, because they had the “intention of securing the release of a person from slavery”, and if proven, then the individual has not committed “an offence against this section”.

Subsection 270.3(5) of the Code stipulates that “the defendant bears a legal burden of proving” that they were conducting themselves in the manner in which they did in order to see the release of the person being treated as a slave, and this must be proven to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, which means that it is more than likely true.

There are a number of statutory defences contained in the Criminal Code open to be argued against a charge of slavery, but due to the nature of the crime, the circumstances in which a defence would be open to be argued are not so obvious.

Section 10.2 of the Criminal Code contains the defence of duress, which is the most likely defence that might be made out against a charge of slavery.

Duress entails an accused arguing that they are not criminally responsible as they carried out their conduct due to a threat that had been made against them and would be carried out unless they continued with their illegal conduct, and there was no other reasonable way to avoid the threat, while the conduct must be shown to have been a reasonable response to the threat being made.

Legislating the Commonwealth offences

The Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 inserted the section 270.3 offence of slavery into the Criminal Code, and the legislation was introduced into Australian parliament in March 1999.

These laws involved an updating of slavery offences in Australian law, which then dated back to the 19th century, and the explanatory memorandum of the bill set out that universal jurisdiction applied, as the majority of this type of criminal behaviour was said to happen outside of this country.

Judging from the 24 March 1999 second reading speech on the bill by Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald the main concern at the time was the outlawing of sexual servitude.

The senator did explain that the definition of slavery was based upon the 1926 International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery, except the Australian legislation carried two important differences.

These included that the situation of slavery can arise from debt or a contract made by the person carrying out the crime of slavery, and that this must involve “a condition whereby a power attaching to a right of ownership is exercised over” the person in debt or under contract.

Another important distinction was the adding the crime of providing finances for the facilitation of the crime of slavery, as this was done in order to target organisers, managers and financiers of such slavery operations.

Australia meeting its international obligations

The Australian Centre for International Justice has welcome this “unprecedented move” by Australia in pressing these types of charges, as a further step towards this country meeting its international obligations in investigating and prosecuting international crimes and contributing to the global effort to secure justice for the Yazidi people, including in pursuing crimes against humanity and genocide.

The centre notes that the pressing of crimes against humanity charges against the two Australian women “more accurately reflect the allegations Yazidi survivors have raised”, which marks a significant shift away from the AFP’s reliance on pressing terrorism-related charges alone.

“The charges brought in Australia… mark a significant step towards ensuring that Australians alleged to have participated in or facilitated atrocities against the Yazidi community are investigated and prosecuted for the full gravity of those crimes under Australian law,” the ACIJ added.