Blackmail Flashcards
Offence of Blackmail
s21 of the Theft Act 1968
(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a) That he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) That the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.
Penalty:
- Indictment– 14 years
Meaning of “Gain” and “Loss”
Section 34 of the 1968 Act states:
(2) For purposes of this Act—
(a) “Gain” and “loss” are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in money or other property, but as extending to any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent; and—
(i) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one has not; and
(ii) “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might (expect to) get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has;
Would demanding sexual favours constitute as an offence of blackmail?
No, because it is not ‘money or other property’.
Can an offence of attempted blackmail be made?
The offence of blackmail is complete when the demand with menaces is made.
As a result, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have an offence of attempted blackmail as the defendant will either be preparing to make the demand or will have made it.
What do the words or conduct need to amount to?
Threats and conduct of such a nature and extent that a person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to give in to the demands.
Menaces will therefore include threats but these must be SIGNIFICANT TO THE VICTIM – e.g locking a claustrophobic person in the boot of a car.
If a situation arose where a serious threat failed to intimidate the victim at all is the offence still committed?
Yes, so long as it would influence a person of normal stability and courage.
If a defendant raises the issue that his/her demand was reasonable and proper, you will have to prove that he/she did not genuinely believe:
- That he/she had reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
- That the use of the particular menaces deployed was not a proper means of reinforcing it.
Does a gain or loss need to be material profit for an offence of blackmail?
No, as seen in R v Bevans (1988) where a blackmailer used menaces to obtain painkilling injections from a Doctor.
At what point is the offence complete?
When the demand with menaces is made, not when the gain/loss has occurred.
Question: A man tells a woman that if she does not have sex with him he will harm her daughter. He shows her the knife that he says he will use. The woman has sex with the man.
Has he committed blackmail?
- No, he has not committed blackmail.
- Demanding sexual favours does not constitute as an offence of blackmail as it is not ‘money or other property’.
Question: A little girl is very ill. Her father cannot afford the medication needed to cure her. He goes to the hospital and threatens to throw acid in the face of the Doctor if he does not treat his daughter. The Doctor gives the daughter the tablets and they leave.
Has he committed blackmail?
- Yes, he has committed blackmail.
- R v Bevans (1988) demonstrates that obtaining dugs amounts to property. The morality of the act is irrelevant and is for the courts to decide upon.
Question: In relation to Blackmail contrary to section 21 Theft Act 1968 a demand is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief that they have reasonable grounds for making the demand and the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
In terms of reasonable grounds, how is that decision made?
What amounts to reasonable grounds is subjective, therefore the person’s belief may be unreasonable but must be lawful
Question: Tyson is a debt collector who has been sold the debt for Michael. Michael is said to owe £500 to a skip company but he is disputing this and is starting proceedings to take it through the court. Tyson attends Michael’s address and beckons him outside, he doesn’t say a word but shows him three polaroid photographs of broken fingers and then gives him a card that reads ‘£500 – Friday – Midday’
Considering the offence of ‘Blackmail’ contrary to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, has an offence been committed?
The offence has been made out as although Tyson has a legitimate debt to recover he is using menaces which would amount to an unlawful act.
The fact Tyson has a legitimate debt is irrelevant if the means to obtain it are through criminal means (in this case the breaking of fingers).
Question: Paula and Ollie are going through a divorce. They jointly own a sausage dog called Wurst. Wurst is staying with Ollie when Paula tells him that she wants Wurst when they officially divorce. Ollie says that is not happening and she better not put it in the paperwork. Paula tells him she is and as such Ollie says that if she does, then he will send all of her family the sex tape they made and he still has a copy of. Paula thinks this will ruin her life.
Considering the offence of ‘Blackmail’ contrary to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, has an offence been committed?
The offence is made out as a menace has been made and Ollie can gain Wurst even though he has possession of him.
It is irrelevant that Wurst is jointly owned. Keeping something you already have can amount to a gain. Similarly not getting something which you might expect to gain can be a loss.
