Yay, an Australian legal history question! Ok, so some context: with the Industrial Revolution and accompanying urbanisation in full swing, Britain’s cities were getting crowded, fast. Given the laissez-faire approach to provision of social services, the population of urban poor skyrocketed, as did petty crime. At the time, there were only 12 superior court judges with a case load of 10 000 per year, each. The result was a very formulaic, strict approach to the law that saw capital punishment reach staggering new numbers. Over time, mostly through social opposition, the law was gradually reformed throughout the Nineteenth Century, but in the meantime, convict transportation was often used as a way to reduce prison congestion (which was soaring) and commute death sentences which saw public appeal. Take, for example, the case of Henry and Susannah Kable, who were transported to Australia after a prison turnkey begged for their lives and drummed up enough support for people to donate a variety of goods for them in their new, Australian lives. The result of all of these factors is that there were in fact well over 200 crimes that could result in a sentence of transportation (Bruce Kercher, An Unruly Child. A History of Law in Australia). Obviously this is well beyond the 19 established by the wine brand. Probably the most important which is overlooked by 19 Crimes is the vast number of political prisoners who were transported, often due to their support of Irish independence (although, to be fair, many of these political dissidents were imprisoned under spurious charges of petty crimes mentioned).

So then, is there any truth to this claim of 19 Crimes? Sort of. This particular wine brand claims connection to Ned Kelly, who may have worked as a smith (briefly) in the area, and they like to play up the rogue-ish element in their advertising campaigns, so the name may just be a piece of marketing fluff. However, it IS true that throughout 1760-1820, a variety of lists were published dubbed ‘Crimes denominated single felonies; punishable by transportation, whipping, imprisonment, the pillory, and hard labour in houses of correction, according to the nature of the offence’. It is also true that these lists were usually about 20 items long. I can’t say that I’ve stumbled upon the particular list used by 19 Crimes, but this guy on Twitter has a snap: https://twitter.com/fxmc1957/status/556762302838734848 Most of the crimes on there match a list from 1806 (Patrick Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis), so I can’t dismiss their particular list with any authority (including the crime of Impersonating an Egyptian, which is also noted by the National Museum Australia (apologies, I haven’t been there in some time and their website doesn’t have an artefact catalogue so I can’t be more specific other than to say that this crime IS noted in text on their website).

As for the follow up question https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3mysak/what_were_the_19_crimes_that_sent_you_to_australia/cvjlyyl, this is highly dependent on the time period in question. Over the period of 1788-1860, British law changed dramatically, as did the Australian treatment of convicts. It is certainly true that at various times, convicts in Australia actually enjoyed a degree of freedom and prosperity (particularly regarding legal rights) that urban poor in Britain could only have dreamed of (an example being the above mentioned Kable family who sued their transporter for losing the goods donated to them, in complete contradiction to British law which labelled convicts as having no property rights). However, this experience was highly variable, some masters were unbelievably cruel with one Van Diemen’s Land convict noting harsh lashings being fairly constant (Clark, Angus and Robertson, Select Documents in Australian History, 1788-1850). Additionally, it can only be estimated as to how aware the population of urban poor in Britain was of these conditions. Many prisoners explicitly campaigned against transportation as a cruel punishment, separating them from families and ending their political activism. Early on, conditions in the colonies COULD be extremely poor as well. Starvation and illness were a fairly big reason to avoid transportation. However, it is true that others were, if not happy, at least satisfied with transportation as a punishment. These were largely those whose transportation was a result of a commuted death sentence (the threat of which was a major reason that deliberately committing transportable offences was a bad idea) or were members of the aristocracy who had become insolvent (Kercher, again). Others, particularly Chartists and the like, while not exactly pleased about being forced to sail across the world, itself a perilous journey, and eke out an existence in a bleak, hostile new place, certainly perked up a bit when they found the opportunity to continue their political activism.

As a follow-up, How did those being sent to Australia view their fate? Were any of them pleased to get away? E.g. At it's height in the 19th Century one of the main things that would warrant a British person being sent to a penal colony was (I believe) overcrowding. Did any potential candidates welcome transportation with "open arms"? As a way to escape the crime & poverty that was stereotypical of the UK at this time?

Here are the 19 the company claims.

Source: I'm working a liquor promo right now. http://i.imgur.com/0SS4BbE.jpg