EXAM NOTES: Robbery/Blackmail Flashcards
what is required for the blackmail (BM) offence?
(1) Demand
(2) Menaces
(3) Gain or loss
(4) Unwarranted
what is the governing law for BM?
TA 1968 s21
What is the AR for BM?
1) demand
2) with menaces
explain ‘demand’ for BM
- D must expressly or impliedly make a demand of V to do or refrain from doing something
• R v Collister and Warhurst - sufficient that an ordinary reasonable man would understand a demand for money was being made
• Demand is “made” as soon as it is said/written etc and does not require actual communication Treacy v DPP
explain ‘menaces’ for BM
1) May be express or implied
2) Thorne v Motor Trade – includes any detrimental or unpleasant action
how is ‘menaces’ defined?
Normally given ordinary meaning unless definition by judge absolutely necessary e.g. in special circumstances – R v Lawrence & Pomroy
what if D is not intimidated by the menace?
R v Clear
- actions which would not intimidate or influence anyone are not menaces
- but actions that influence the mind of an ordinary man with ordinary stability/courage are menaces
- even if D is particularly brave and is not intimidated
what if V is particularly intimidated?
R v Garwood
- if V has a particular reason to be specially intimidated by a particular threat
- and D knows about this
- this can be taken into account to make a menace more serious
what is the MR for BM?
- menaces are made with a view to making a gain or causing a loss
- menaces are unwarranted
explain the ‘gain or loss’ concept for BM MR
• An intent to make a demand, a view to gain for self or another, or intent to cause loss to another
o No need for material profit to be intended e.g. blackmail for a painkilling drug injection in R v Bevan
how are menaces unwarranted?
S21(1)(a) and (b) unwarranted if D has:
o No belief of reasonable grounds for making the demands, AND
o No belief that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand
- entirely subjective test - just needs ‘honest belief’
Give some cases that explain how menaces are unwarranted for BM
- Cannot believe the menace is a “proper means” if D knows it is unlawful/criminal to carry the threat out – R v Harvey.
- A demand can be made with “reasonable cause” considering the facts of the case e.g. in Thorne v Motor Trade Association. The amount demanded must be relative to this cause
- R v Lambert - No requirement that the person making the demand is going to be the one who carries out any of the threatened action, or for the demander to be in a position to carry it out.
what is the general structure for a robbery answer?
(1) Theft AR
a. Appropriation property BTA
(2) Use of force
(3) On any person
(4) Immediately before/at the time of stealing
(5) Theft MR
a. Dishonesty/ITPD
(6) Intention to use force to steal
what is the governing law for robbery (Rob)?
S8 TA 1968 s1
what is the AR for robbery?
1 AR for theft
2 use of force
3 or creation of fear of being immediately subjected to force
4 on any person
5 immediately before or at the time of stealing
what is the AR for theft? (for robbery)
1 appropriation
2 property
3 BTA
- Corcoran v Anderton: pulling on a handbag constituted an appropriation and therefore theft was satisfied
explain the use of force for Rob
1) D uses force on someone
2) R v Dawson & James – force just means touching in some way
3) R v Hale – covering V’s mouth was ‘force’
4) R v Clouden - force can be applied through V’s property; pulling on a bag they’re holding
5) P and Others v DPP – if force applied through property it must be more than minimal. If it is not, there must be some contact with the person
how can robbery be carried out through the apprehension of being then and there subjected to force?
B and R v DPP
1) a threat causes V to think that force will be used against them
2) no need for V to fear the use of force
R v Taylor
1) if the person being threatened is not aware of the threat, D must INTEND that they feel immediately threatened. if not, not liability
explain ‘on any person’ for Rob
• As long as someone is aware of the threat to them, robbery can be satisfied.
explain the need for immediacy in the use of force/threat in robbery
• R v Hale – appropriation is a continuing act so tying her up after stealing from her constituted robbery
• R v Donaghy & Marshall if there is a delay between use of force and theft
(1) at the time of the theft the threat must still be acting on the V
(2) it is this threat that forces V to comply
(3) the Ds are aware of this.
what is the MR for robbery?
1) MR for theft
2) intention to use force to steal
explain the need for MR for theft in Rob
• Dishonesty
• Intention permanently to deprive
• R v Robinson
- believed V’s wife owed him money and got in a fight with him
- money fell out of V’s pocket and he took it as ‘part payment’
- could rely on s2(1)(a) TA 1968 - honestly believed he was entitled to the money
explain the need for an intention to use force to steal in robbery
Force must be used intending to use force to steal
o Accidental use of force is not enough. E.g. if you knock someone over accidentally then run away with their wallet, no robbery.
