Other slides in this set

Slide 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Rule of law 1: demand
D) this can be words or conduct in writing email or
any other method. It doesn't need to be made to the
victim.
E) Collister and Warhurst (1955) D overheard 2
police officer discussing the chance of dropping
charges in exchange for money. Their discussion was
held to be a demand
Treacy v DPP (1971) D posted a letter with a demand
from England to Germany. Even though the letter
would not be opened until it was in Germany HoL
held they could be guilty.…read more

Slide 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Rule of law 2: Unwarranted demand
D) the demand is unwarranted unless the 2 stage test is fulfilled.
Firstly, that the defendant had reasonable grounds for making the
demand and the use of menaces was appropriate.
E) Harvey (1981) Ds had given £20,000 to the complainant for a
consignment of cannabis. The consignment, however, turned out to
be worthless. In response the defendants kidnapped the
complainants wife and child and threatened to rape, maim and kill
them unless he returned their money. The trial judge directed the
jury that threats to commit serious criminal offences could never be
regarded as 'proper'. The jury convicted them of blackmail and they
appealed on the grounds of a mis-direction.
The convictions were upheld. The trial judge was wrong not to leave
the question of belief that the demand was proper to the jury, the
Court of Appeal was satisfied that a jury properly directed would
have inevitably convicted.…read more

Slide 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Rule of law 3: Menaces
D) Menaces means a serious threat
E) Harry (1974) The defendant was the organiser of a Student
Rag Appeal. He wrote to local shop keepers asking for
donations and offering immunity from any 'inconvenience'
arising from Rag activities.
Lawrence & Pomroy (1971) Pomroy repaired the roof of Mr
Thorn. Mr Thorn was unhappy with the work and refused to
pay the full price. Pomroy demanded the remaining £70 and
told him to 'keep looking over his shoulder' if he stepped out
of the house. Pomroy returned to the house a few days later
with Lawrence (a large man) and asked Mr Thorn to 'step
outside' to sort matters out. Lawrence and Pomroy were
convicted of blackmail and appealed contending they had
made no threat of violence. The convictions were upheld. The
threat of violence can be implied it need not be explicitly
stated.…read more

Slide 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Rule of law 4: View to gain or intent to cause loss
D) this is usually with money or property and D has to
make demand intending for the gain or loss to be
temporary or permanent.
E) Bevans (1988) The appellant forced a doctor at
gunpoint to provide him with an injection of morphine
for pain relief. The appellant argued that his demand was
made in order to relieve his pain not to make a gain for
himself. It mattered not whether the doctor gave him
ampoules or morphine or injected him directly with
morphine in each situation 'property' had been gained
and therefore it fell within the ambit of the offence of
blackmail.…read more

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »