Blackmail Flashcards
In relation to Blackmail Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, Tony is owed money by Steve. He turns up at Steve’s house one evening knocks on the door and when it opened he asks for the money from Steve. Steve refuses, so Tony explains that he will come in and take items of the value owed unless he coughs up. He tells Steve that if he gets in his way he will deal with him.
Does Tony have a defence for the blackmail that he is committing here?
No, unless he can prove that the demand with menaces is made in the belief that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand and that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand
It is said that a demand is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief of two things.
What best describes the ‘two things required’ for a demand to be warranted?
The person has reasonable grounds for making the demand and the use of menaces is a proper way of reinforcing the demand made.
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 made out?
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
Darren posts a letter to Germany containing a demand with menaces. It is written on the Thursday and it is posted from London on the Friday and received by the recipient in Germany on the following Tuesday. Darren’s legal team argue that the demand did not take effect until it was received in Germany, so as the offence was committed there, he could not be tried in England.
Which of the following is correct in relation to where Darren should be tried for Blackmail?
(a) The demand is read in Germany on the Tuesday, therefore he should be tried in Germany
(b) The demand is made the moment it is written on the Thursday, therefore he should be tried in England
(c) The demand is made the moment the letter is posted on the Friday, therefore he should be tried in England.
(d) The victim is in Germany, therefore he should be tried in Germany.
The demand is made the moment the letter is posted on the Friday, therefore he should be tried in England.
Taylor is an accomplished criminal. He enters the local post office on Saturday afternoon wearing a motorcycle helmet and produces a piece of paper to Maggie behind the counter. The note says ‘ if you don’t pass me 5000 Euros from that till in the next ten seconds, I will instruct my mate to break into your house and smash it to bits and anyone in there will get it’. Fearing that her mother is at home looking after her young child, Maggie does what the note says. Taylor then leaves. There was in fact no mate outside Maggie’s mums house at all.
Has an offence of Blackmail contrary to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 taken place here?
The offence of Blackmail is made out here in these circumstances
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 which of the following is correct?
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 as cannot getting something you might expect to get can be a loss. Property is not defined in blackmail.
Mark decides to send a letter to a large supermarket chain informing them that unless they pay £10000 into an anonymous account within 48 hours, he will seriously hurt a member of staff in the coming week in one of the stores using a knife. Mark posts the letter on Monday, the supermarket receive it on Tuesday and decide to pay Mark as requested on Wednesday.
At what point has the demand taken place?
At the point of the letter being posted
Fill in the missing words in this definition of Blackmail, contrary to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968?
A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to________ for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any ___________ demand with menaces
Gain and Unwarranted
Michael is on the internet when he starts speaking to a person whom he believes to be a female from Thailand. In fact he is speaking to a member of an organised crime group. Michael is persuaded to strip naked in front of his webcam and perform a sex act. He does this and is immediately informed that the act has been recorded and will be shared on his social media unless he transfers £1000 to a bank account in Burma. Michael refuses to pay the money and closes his account.
Considering the offence of ‘Blackmail’ contrary to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 when, if at all, is an offence made out?
The offence is made out once the demand for money is made.
Marcus is gangster who is in dispute with Adams. Marcus meets Adams unexpectedly in a pub and decides to blackmail him. Marcus says to Adams “I want ten grand on Friday left in a black holdall at the door of this pub, if not I am going to break your arms”. Adams isn’t fussed about the threat, nor believes Marcus has the ability to carry it out and as such says “You carry on talking like that and what you will get on Friday are two broken legs”.
Considering the offence of Blackmail, when, if at all, is an offence made out?
The offence of blackmail is made out as Marcus has made a threat to gain money.
Rob is extremely timid and Martin knows this. Martin sees Rob waiting at the bus stop and tells him that tomorrow he expects Rob to have made him a chocolate cake. Martin holds an empty drinks can up in the air and says ‘if you don’t bake me a cake’ and he crushes it with his hand and throws it in the bin. Rob is absolutely terrified of Martin and bakes him the cake.
Considering the offence of ‘Blackmail’ contrary to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 which of the following is correct?
The offence is made out, as Martin knows that Rob is timid and his actions have affected him.
This is case law R v Garwood where it was held that there were two occasions in relation to menaces:
Where the threats might affect the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability (even if they don’t affect the person addressed) therefore the menaces are sufficient.
Where the threats affected the mind of the victim even though they would not have affected the mind of a person of normal stability. If the person making the threats / menaces was aware of the likely effect of them on that specific person.
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 what?
Unless they have reasonable grounds for making the demand and the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand
Janice doesn’t like Tula very much. Janice knows that Tula is afraid of spiders, so posts a letter to Tula saying unless she leaves £1000 in used bank notes in a bin at the park, Janice will put tarantulas through Tula’s letter box at night when she is asleep
In relation to blackmail contrary to section 21 Theft Act 1968 when if at all has the demand been made?
The demand is made out at the point the letter is posted
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 which of the following is correct?
What amounts to reasonable grounds is subjective, therefore the person’s belief may be unreasonable but must be lawful.
Blackmail contrary to section 21 Theft Act 1968 tells us that 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.
Sophia tells Ellen to lend Samantha her hair straighteners. Ellen refuses so Sophia says if she does not lend Samantha the hair straighteners then she will tell Ellen’s parents that she is a lesbian. Ellen has recently come out to her friends but her parents do not know and if Sophia tells them she is concerned that she will be expelled from the family. Ellen hands over the hair straighteners to Samantha who thanks her and says she will give them back tomorrow.
Considering the offence of ‘Blackmail’ contrary to Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, has an offence taken place?
The offence is made out in these circumstances
