Blackmail - Theft Act 1968 s21

• Outlined in Theft Act 1968 s21
• Max sentence = 14 years

s21 Theft Act 1968:

• s21 (1) a person is gulty 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 purpose a demand with meanaces is unwarranted unless 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 menace is a proper means of reinforcing the demand

Elements:

• Making an unwarranted demand
• With menaces
• The demand must be unwarranted
• With a view to make a gain to himself or another, or have intent to cause a loss to another

• Can be through any form of communication
• Making demand = AR of offence. Once demand is made, V does not need to receive it

Collister and Warhurst 

• A D overheard two PCs discussing whether to drop a charge against the D in return for payment
• They did not make any direct demand
• Discussion not aimed at D
• Held: their discussion satisfied the element of a demand for the purpose of blackmail
  • Need not even be made explicitly to V

Treacy v DPP (1971)  

• D posted letter w/demand from England to Germany.
• HL: Despite the fact that it would not have been opened until in Germany, D could be liable o blackmail
  • the posting (and therefore the demand) was in England

Lawrence and Pomroy 

• Ds helped repair V's house. V not impressed - refused to pay
• Ds threatened V to come out and face them. D1 had knife
• Conviction upheld: menaces = ordinary english word which any jury could be expected to understand

Clear (1968)

• menaces = 'of such a nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stabilit and courage might be influenced, or made apprehensive by it so as to unwillingly accede to it'
  • Whether V was actually intimidated = irrelevant
    • question is whether the menaces would affect an ordinary person

Harry (1974)  

• D (college RAG treasurer) sent poster to shopkeeps w/letter saying that any displaying poster would avoid any RAG activity that may 'inconvenience' the owner
• Of 115 recipients, five complained. Shows shopkeepers generally unconcerned.
• Following Clear, blackmail not proved: no 'threat' that made them apprehensive to willingly accede to demand

Garwood

• A threat that would not affect a normal person, but does affect V, can still be menaces, so long as D was aware of likely effect on V
• V not giving in to menaces does not prevent D from being guiilty

• s21 - any demand made with menaces is unwarranted unless two tests are fulfilled. In order for the demand to be warranted, D must show he believed:
  • (a) he had reasonable grounds for making the demand
  • (b) the use of menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand
• these focus on what D believes - subjective
• D = not guilty if genuinely believed he had reasonable grounds + believed that the use of menaces was the appropriate way of reinforcing the demand

Harvey

• D payed V £20000 for cannabis - turned out to not be cannabis
• D kidnapped V + V's family
  • made threats for if money was not returned
• D did believe they had reasonable grounds for makng demand but could not have believed that the use of menaces was a proper means of making the demands 

• D acts with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another
• s34(2)(a)(i) 'gain' = includes a gain by keeping what one has, as wll as a gain by getting what one has not
• s34(2)(a)(ii) 'loss' includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has