Law 04 Blackmail

?

Cases for a demand

Collister and Warhurst - A demand can take any form: words, conduct, writing, email and in this case it doesnt even need to be made explicity to the victim 

Treacy v DPP - The AR is the demand it doesnt not need to be recived for example through the post, the demand is considered made at the point the letter is posted 

1 of 4

Cases for unwarranted demand

S21 - Any demand made with menaces is unwarranted unless two tests in 21(1) are fufilled that the D themselves belived:

S21(1) - A) He had reasonable grounds for making the demand, and; B) The use of the meanaces was a propper means of reinforcing the demand 

Harvey - Case to support the test of s21(1) and was not guilty as the use of meanace was used in the propper way of reinforcing the demand. The D must believe this 

2 of 4

Cases for menaces

'Menaces' - Means a serious threat, but wider than just a threat 

Lawrence and Pomroy - It was held that menaces was an ordinary English word which any jury can be expected to understand. 

Clear - Menace must either be 'of such nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stabilty and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive by it so as to unwillingly accede to it'. It is not necessary to prove victim to be actually intimidated 

Harry - If the menaces would affect an ordinary person this is a suffcient, but if they would not, then blackmail cannot usually be proved 

Garwood - Where a threat is made which would not affect a normal person; this can still be menaces if the D was aware of the likley effect on V. 

The fact that V does not give into the menaces does not prevent D from being guilty 

3 of 4

Cases for a view to gain or intent to cause loss

Theft Act 1968 S34(2)(a) - Defines 'gain' and 'loss'

'Gain' - Gain fo himself by keeping what he has or getting what one has not 

'Loss' - Loss not getting what one might get or loss by parting from what they have 

'Property' - Money, real property, personal property, things in action, other intangiable propety 

Bevans - Held that morphine was property and also that it was a gain for noth the defendant and a loss to the doctor from who it was demanded 

4 of 4

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »