Law-Blackmail

Question 1

Where is the definition of blackmail set out?

Answer 1

In s21 of the Theft Act 1968 which states that ‘(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 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’

Question 2

What are the four points that need to be proved for blackmail?

Answer 2

A demand, which is unwarranted; and made with menaces, and with a view to gain or intent to cause loss

Question 3

What is the actus reus of blackmail?

Answer 3

The making of an unwarranted demand with menaces

Question 4

What is the mens rea of blackmail?

Answer 4

An intention to make an unwarranted demand with menaces and with a view to gain or loss

Question 5

What is the demand element of blackmail?

Answer 5

There must be a demand, but that demand may take any form. So it may be by words, conduct, in writing or by email or any other method

Question 6

What happened in the case of Collister and Warhusrst?

Answer 6

It was shown that the demand need not even be made explicitly to the victim. Within the defendant’s hearing two police officers discussed the chances of them dropping a charge against him in return for payment. They didn’t make a direct demand. However, their discussion was held to be a demand for the purpose of blackmail

Question 7

What was decided by the House of Lords in Treacy DPP?

Answer 7

Making the demand is the actus reus of the offence. Once it is made the actus reus is complete. The demand does not have to be received by the victim. Where a demand is sent through the post, the demand is considered made at the point the letter is posted

Question 8

What is the unwarranted element of blackmail?

Answer 8

Section 21 explains that any demand made with menaces is unwarranted unless two tests set out in s21 (1) are fulfilled

Question 9

What are the two tests in s21 (1)?

Answer 9

The two tests are that the defendant has to show that he believed: (a) he had reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) the use of the menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand. The tests focus on the defendant’s belief and so give a subjective element

Question 10

What was shown by the case of Harvey?

Answer 10

If defendant really thought he had reasonable grounds for making the demand and that the use of menaces was the proper way of reinforcing the demand, then he is not guilty of blackmail. In the case the defendant had paid £20,000 for what he claimed to be cannabis but felt they had been ‘ripped off’ and as there wasn’t a legal contract they couldn’t recover the money so kidnapped victim, his wife and child, and made threats of rape and murder-conviction was upheld

Question 11

What happens when a genuine claim is made?

Answer 11

The two tests mean that, even though the defendant has a genuine claim, he can still be guilty of blackmail if he does not believe that the use of the menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand

Question 12

What is the menaces element of blackmail?

Answer 12

The demand must be made with menaces. ‘Menaces’ has been held to mean a serious threat, but it is wider than just a threat. In Lawrence and Pomroy it was held that menaces was an ordinary English word in which any jury can be expected to understand

Question 13

What was said in the case of Clear?

Answer 13

It was said that the menace must either be ‘of such a nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive by it so as to unwillingly accede to it’

Question 14

What was shown in the case of Harry?

Answer 14

It is not necessary to prove that the victim was actually intimidated. So if the menaces would affect an ordinary person this is sufficient, but if they would not, then blackmail cannot usually be proved

Question 15

However, what did the court of appeal say in the case of Garwood?

Answer 15

Where a threat is made which would not affect a normal person; this can still be menaces if the defendant was aware of the likely effect on the victim. Eg if the defendant knows the victim is extremely attached to an item such as a prize rose or pet dog, then threats to destroy or kill it could be menaces for the purpose of blackmail

Question 16

What happens when the victim does not give into the blackmail?

Answer 16

The fact that the victim does not give into the menaces does not prevent defendant from being guilty. For example, the victim may refuse to pay up and instead go to the police to report the defendant’s menaces. The defendant would still be guilty of blackmail

Question 17

What does the interpretation section in the Theft Act 1968 s34 (2)(a) define ‘gain’ and ‘loss’ as for the the purpose of the mens rea of blackmail (view to gain or intend to cause loss)?

Answer 17

“(2) For the 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’ included a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has.”

Question 18

What does s34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 mean?

Answer 18

The view to gain for himself or the intent to cause loss to another has to involve money or other property. But the gain or loss need not be intended to be permanent, it can be temporary. Property as the same meaning as for theft (so it covers money, real property, personal property, things in action and other intangible property)

Question 19

What happens when the defendant does not succeed in making the gain or causes the loss he intended?

Answer 19

He is still guilty of blackmail. The important point is that he made the unwarranted demand with a view to gain or an intent to cause a loss

Question 20

What happened in the case of Bevans?

Answer 20

Defendant who was suffering from severe osteoarthritis, pointed a gun at his doctor and demanded a morphine injection for pain relief. The doctor gave the injection. It was held that the morphine was property and, also, that it was both a gain for the defendant and a loss to the doctor from whom it was demanded