'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 purpoe a demand with menaces is unwarranted unles 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 mencaes is the proper meas of reinforcing the demand'
- that is unwarranted
- with menaces
- and a view to gain for himself or another or to cause loss
Can be made in many forms...
TREACY V DPP
- D sent a demanding letter to Germany
- this was classed as a demand as soon as it was sent
- it need not have reached the recipient
Can even be made indirectly...
COLLISTER & WARHURST
- Ds discussed giving money to policemen to be released from prison
- this was overheard and classed as a demand even though it was indirect
THAT ARE UNWARRANTED
WHAT MAKES A DEMAND WARRANTED?
1. D genuinely believing he has the reasonable for making the demand
2. D genuinly believing the use of menaces is a proper way of reinforcing the demand
BOTH OF THESE MUST BE PROVEN IN ORDER FOR A DEMAND TO BE CLASSED AS UNWARRANTED!
- Ds were mis-sold drugs for £20,000
- demanded money back
- kidnapped the victim and his family and threatened **** and death to
- D DID genuinely believe he had reasonable grounds for making the demand
- BUT he could not have seen the use of these menaces as a proper means for reinforcing the demand
WHAT ARE MENACES? EXPANDED IN CLEAR:
'of such a nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person with normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive by it so as to willingly acede to it'
1. D must make threats
2. V must believe them
3. V must feel compelled to do the demand to avoid threats
EXPANDED EVEN MORE IN GARWOOD:
described menaces to include situations where the threats would not cause apprehenson in a mind of normal stability and courage, but where the defendant knew of the effect it could have on V
SO IF V IS EASILY SCARED AND D KNOWS THIS BUT CONTINUES, HE IS LIABLE...
APPLYING THE RULING FROM 'CLEAR'
- D sent letters to shopkeepers demanding money to avoid implications
- NONE of the shopkeepers paid
- there was therefore no 'aceeding' as stated in the ruling by Clear
- there was also no general apprehension
THIS WAS THEREFORE NOT DECLARED AS 'MENACES'
A VIEW TO GAIN OR CAUSE A LOSS
EXPLAINED FURTHER IN THE INTERPRETATION SECTION...
1. there must be a loss/gain or property
2. the loss/gain need not be permanent
WHAT IS PROPERTY? (SECTION 4 OF THE THEFT ACT 1968)
money,real property, personal property, things in action or intangible things
- D threatened V, a doctor, with a gun to get pain relief
- V gave them
- D had gained the drugs
- and V had lost the drugs, classed as his property