Blackmail
Introduction Threat from the blackmailer to do something if V does not agree to his demand Threat does not need to be illegal Threat does not need to be true E.g. threatening to publicise someone’s criminal record and demanding money in order not to do so
Definition S.21 Theft Act 1968: (1) – with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces. Exceptions: Person makes the demand in the belief that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and In the belief that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand (2) – the nature of the act or omission is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand
Elements of the Offence Actus Reus: Unwarranted demand Menaces Mens Rea Intention to make a demand with menaces Doing so with a view to gain for himself or another or with the intent to cause loss to another Either: Not believing he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; or Not believing that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand
Actus Reus – Unwarranted Demand Demand can be express or implied E.g. express - oral/written demand for money E.g. implied – Collister and Warhurst – demand can be implied – it will be implied when the jury (the reasonable man) can see from the attitude, actions and circumstances that D is making a demand Demand is made when D has done all he can to communicate his demand. E.g. Treacy v DPP – when a letter was posted (so would apply to when an email is sent as long as it doesn’t bounce, or when a text is sent) Demand must be unwarranted – will be unwarranted unless D believes he is entitled to make the demand – e.g. where D has lent money and is demanding its return – not unwarranted
Actus Reus - Menaces Thorne v Motor Trade Association – menaces is “to be liberally construed”. Includes threats of violence or anything unpleasant or detrimental Menaces must be sufficient to influence an ordinary person to submit to the demand - not necessary to show that V was affected by the threat Garwood - But, if V is known by D to be particularly timid, then threats that would not affect the reasonable person but do affect V can still be taken as menaces Harry – e.g. threat which does not amount to menaces – a letter to shopkeepers on a rag week (charity) procession route tat sought contributions to avoid “inconvenience”
Mens Rea – Intention to make a demand with menaces Should be obvious from facts
Mens Rea – D’s view to gain for himself/another or with intent to cause loss to another S.34(2) Theft Act 1968 – “gain” and “loss” must be in money or other property So does not include something with no monetary value Bevans – things of economic value such as a morphine injection are sufficient
Mens Rea – D’s belief as to reasonable grounds for making the demands, and that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand D not guilty of blackmail if he believes he is justified in making the demand and he believes that the use of threats is the proper way of enforcing the demand Belief must be genuinely held Can be a moral or legal belief, but a belief that would generally be viewed as immoral is no defence: Harvey – drug deal left D having paid £20,000 for something worthless. D kidnapped the seller’s wife and child and threatened to maim and rape them if the money was not returned. Convicted even though he believed he was justified in making the threats
Answering Questions on Blackmail Was there an unwarranted demand? Was the demand made with menaces? (Did D intend to make an unwarranted demand with menaces?) Did D make the demand with a view to gain for himself or another or with the intent to cause loss to another? But D will not be guilty if: He believed he had reasonable grounds for making the demand; AND He believed that the use of the menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand