 It involves a threat made so that a person does an act against his will, or in order to obtain the person’s money or property  It is a threat from the blackmailer to do something for not agreeing to the demand  The threat doesn’t have to be something illegal and doesn’t need to be true

 S21 Theft Act 1968  Elements  Unwarranted demand  Menaces  An intention to make a demand with menaces  Doing so with an intent to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another  Both: ▪ Not believing he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and ▪ Not believing that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand

 Making an unwarranted demand with menaces

 Can be express or implied  Collister and Warhurst- Ds were policemen, they indicated to the victim that he would be reported for a sexual offence but they would hold back on reporting it until the next day. When they met him the next day and asked if he had anything for them. He gave them £5. This showed an implied demand.  Question to ask- Based on the situation and attitude of the D would a reasonable person think a demand had been made?

 The demand is made when the D has done everything he can to communicate the demand- Treacy v DPP- in this case when a letter was posted  The demand must be unwarranted, this means that it must be for something that the defendant is not entitled.  It is not unwarranted if the D believes he has a legal entitlement to make the demand, even if it later turns out he did not, so long as the belief is reasonable

 Menaces- threats  Broad interpretation  Thorne v Motor Trade Association Lord Wright- “The word menaces is to be liberally construed… not as limited to threats of violence, but as including threats of any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the person addressed.”

 The effect of the demand must be that the reasonable person would be influenced or fearful so that the demand is likely to be met.  If the victim is known to the D to be particularly timid then threats which wouldn’t effect a reasonable person can still be taken as menaces- Garwood

 An example of this is Harry D was a member of a rag committee who had asked shopkeepers to buy a poster to protect their shops from rag activities. This was seen as trivial.

 An intention to make a demand with menaces

 The Ds view to gain or loss- s34(2) Theft Act 1968 defines this:  Gain and loss are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in money or other property…as extending to any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent

 “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as getting what one has not  “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has

 In other words if they think they have a right to what they are asking for and they think there is a valid reason for using threat then they may not be guilty  Belief must be genuinely held  Can be a moral rather than a legal belief, however a belief that would generally be viewed as immoral is no defence

 Morally or socially acceptable according to the general standards of society  Harvey a drug deal left the D having paid £20,000 for something worthless. He made threats to the V. He was convicted even though he thought he was justified in making the threats.

 Indictable offence  Maximum sentence 14 years

Billy, who was about 19 years old, told Eddie, who was 16 years old and of low intelligence, that he would beat him up unless he did everything he said. Billy gave him a toy gun and a towel to wrap round it to disguise its appearance, and told him to go into the local shop and demand money from the shop owner, Jan, to give to Billy. Eddie entered the shop very hesitantly, not really knowing what to do, but then pointed the gun at Jan and snatched the nearest object he could find. As he did so, Jan suffered a heart attack and collapsed. She took many months to recover. When Eddie examined what he had taken, he found that it was a box containing chocolates.  Discuss the criminal liability of Billy for any property offence arising out of his treatment of Eddie

Case nameFactsPoint of law the case illustrates