BlackMail

D makes a demand which is unwarranted with menaces

S21 Theft Act 1968

There must be a demand which had the purpose of making/stopping the victim doing something

R v Collister and Warhurst: the demand doesnt have to be made directly to the victim. It can be made directly or indirectly with conduct or gestures

Treacy: The demand is made at the moment the threat/demand has been sent; it doesnt need to be recieved by the victim

It will be unwarranted UNLESS:

The defendant himself believes-

-He had reasonable grounds to make the demand

AND - the use of menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand

IT IS NEVER PROPER TO THREATEN VIOLENCE

Harry- The threat must be 'serious enough' to count as menaces

Thorne- Must be detrimental or unpleasant

Clear- elaborated THORNE saying it must be such a threat that the ordinary person of normal courage and stability would have given in

Garwood- If the victim was eapecially timid this would only be accounted for if the defendant was aware

With view to make gain for himself or another and/or intent to cause loss to another

Bevans- force doctor to give him morphine at gun point- gaining something he didnt have before

Parkes- took money owed to him via a debt- was said to be gaining from this as he had hard cash instead of the asset of debt which is preferable