Blackmail

Question 1

What is blackmail?

Answer 1

Theft Act 1968, s21
(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

Question 2

What is the sentence for blackmail?

Answer 2

Triable on indictment
14 years’ imprisonment

Question 3

Can the demand be made in writing?

Answer 3

Doesn’t matter if the demand is made orally or in writing.

Question 3

Summary- what is blackmail?

Answer 3

An unwarranted demand with menaces- it does not matter what is demanded.

Question 3

Can the demand be made orally?

Answer 3

Does not matter if the demand is made orally or in writing.

Question 4

When is the offence of blackmail complete?

Answer 4

If the demand is made in writing, it is when the letter is posted.
If the demand is made orally, it is when the words are spoken.
The demand is complete when it has left the control of the person making it.

Question 5

What if the letter is never received or the words cannot be heard?

Answer 5

The offence is still made out.
It is irrelevant if the letter is never received or the words cannot be heard or understood.

Question 6

Does the demand have to be an express demand?

Answer 6

The demand does not have to be express eg: telling shop assistant to hand over money in till.
It can be implied by conduct eg: pointing gun at assistant and gesturing to till.

Question 7

What does the phrase ‘with a view to’ mean?

Answer 7

Held by COA to be less than ‘with intent to’.
Court accepted that ‘with a view to’ meant simply that D had something in his contemplation as something that realistically might occur, not that he necessarily intended or even wanted it to happen
The state of mind needed to prove the first element is that the defendant contemplated some gain for him/herself or for another as being realistically likely to flow from his/her actions. The alternative is an ‘intent’ to cause loss

Question 8

Is there a requirement for dishonesty or theft?

Answer 8

There is no requirement for dishonesty or theft and the offence is aimed at the making of the demands rather than the consequences of them

Question 9

What is the meaning of gain and loss?

Answer 9

s34 1968
(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’ includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has; . . .

Question 10

Summary- What is the meaning of gain and loss?

Answer 10

Keeping what you already have can amount to a ‘gain’. Similarly, not getting something that you might expect to get can be a ‘loss’

Question 11

Does a blackmailer need to seek material profits?

Answer 11

A blackmailer need not be seeking any kind of material profit.
R v Bevans (1988)- D, who was crippled with arthritis, went to a doctor, produced a gun and demanded a pain-killing morphine injection, threatening to shoot the doctor if he did not comply; this was held to be blackmail as the drug involved was a form of property

Question 12

Does a demand for sexual favours constitute an offence of blackmail?

Answer 12

A demand for sexual favours would not constitute an offence of blackmail as those sexual favours are not ‘money or other property’

Question 13

Can you have an offence of attempted blackmail?

Answer 13

Impossible- as D will either be preparing to make the demand or will have made it

Question 14

What are menaces?

Answer 14

Menaces are threats of something unpleasant- doesn’t need to be violence
COA held words or conduct which would not intimidate or influence anyone to respond to the demand would not be ‘menaces’. As such, the term requires 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

Question 14

Does V have to be frightened by the menace himself?

Answer 14

No! V does not need to be frightened- the test is whether a person of normal stability and courage would be frightened by the threat given the circumstances.

Question 14

What if an ordinary person would not be frightened but D was frightened due to a superstability? Would this be a menace?

Answer 14

This would only be robbery IF the defendant was aware of V’s particular susceptibility.
Eg: Threat to open peanut butter would not frighten most people, but would frighten someone if they have an extreme peanut allergy. D must know that V has extreme peanut allergy.

Question 15

Who must the menaces be significant to?

Answer 15

Menaces will therefore include threats but these must be significant to the V. If a threat bears a particular significance for a V (such as being locked in the boot of a car to someone who is claustrophobic), that will be enough provided D was aware of that fact. If V is particularly timid and D knows it, that timidity may be taken into account when assessing whether or not D’s conduct was ‘menacing’ (R v Garwood [1987])
In the converse situation, where an apparently serious threat fails to intimidate the victim at all, the offence is still committed

Question 16

If D raises the issue that his demand was reasonable and proper, what must your prove he did not genuinely believe?

Answer 16

1. that he/she had reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
2. that the use of the particular menaces employed was not a proper means of reinforcing it
   D’s belief will be subjective and could be entirely unreasonable

Question 17

Subjective belief restriction- case

Answer 17

R v Harvey (1981)- D convicted of kidnapping, malicious wounding, false imprisonment and blackmail. Charges arose out of an incident where he had been sold a substance that he falsely believed to be cannabis and in an attempt to get his money back he had made threats to kill, maim and rape
D appealed on basis that judge’s summing-up on the blackmail charge in relation to what were ‘proper’ threats was wrong
Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld- The question of D’s belief should be left to the jury. The word ‘proper’ in s. 21(1) of the Theft Act 1968 had a wide meaning and no act which was not believed to be lawful could be described as ‘proper’