HideShow resource information
  • Created by: rachel
  • Created on: 14-06-14 10:22


S21 Theft Act 1968- 'A person will be guilty of this offence if, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes unwarranted demands with menaces'.

D must make a demand (actus reus)- Collister and Warhurst- the demand does not have to be made expressly/explicitly.

Treacy v DPP- Demand made by post when it was sent. V does not need to have recieved the demand.

Which is unwarranted (mens rea)-      S21- a demand made with menaces will be unwarranted unless a 2-part test in S21(1) is fulfilled- A demand is unwarranted unless D believes that: a). that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand AND

b). the use of menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand. Subjective test.

1 of 3

Blackmail 2

Harvey- 'proper' means legal, so D must believe his menaces are a legal way of backing his demand up. Will not be proper if violence/threats of violence are used.

With menaces (actus reus)-      Thorne- includes any action that is unpleasant or detrimental to V (not limited to violence).

Clear- gives a test of constitutes a 'menace'. It must be a threat 'of such nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability/courage might be influenced/made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand. Objective test.

Garwood- If V was particularly vulnerable and D knew this, this would constitute a menace. (V in this case may not have influenced the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability, but did influence this particular V).

Harry- Prosecution failed for blackmail- no threat had been made.

2 of 3

Blackmail 3

Lambert- The person making the demand does not need to be the one carrying out the menaces/be in a position to carry out the threat.

With a view (intent) to make a gain/cause a loss (mens rea)-      S34 Theft Act 1968- Gain = Keeping what one has. Loss = not getting what one might get. Does not need to succeed in making a gain/causing a loss, only needs to intend it.

Bevans- The property here was the morphine, D intended to gain pain relief.

Parkes- If D demands money lawfully owed to him, this can count as intending to gain.

3 of 3


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »