Cases and sections for Blackmail

?
What section of the Theft Act 1968 defines blackmail?
S.21
1 of 17
What does the case of Collister & Warhurst confirm?
It confirms that a demand is a request that can be expressed or implied
2 of 17
What case confirms that the demand can be in writing, or verbal, and does not need to be recieved?
Treacy v DPP
3 of 17
What did the case of Thorne v Motor Trade Association define?
It defined menaces
4 of 17
What is the definition of menaces?
'But as including threats of any action detrimental or unpleasant to the person addressed.'
5 of 17
What does the case of Clear confirm?
It confirms that there is an objective test, where the threat must be objectively menacing to the ordinary person
6 of 17
What case also confirmed this?
Garwood
7 of 17
What does the case of Harry confirm?
It confirms that the court will decide if there are sufficient menaces to establish blackmail
8 of 17
What is the case that confirms that it does not matter if information is not true?
Christie
9 of 17
What happened in this case?
V was told he would be exposed in the media as a homosexual, which was untrue, if he did not pay over £5000
10 of 17
What does s.34(2) state?
It states that the terms 'gain' or 'loss' extend only to money or other property.
11 of 17
What is the case that confirms the demand for drugs amounted to a demand for property that would give him the gain of pain relief?
Bevans
12 of 17
What happened in the case of Bevans?
A patient demanded an injection of morphine from a doctor at gunpoint to reduce his pain
13 of 17
What does the case of Ablewhite and others confirm?
It confirms that corpses are property
14 of 17
What else does it confirm?
This case also confirms that the intended gain or loss could be temporary or permanent
15 of 17
What does s.21(1) confirm?
It confirms that the demand will not be unwarranted if d believes that a) he had reasonable grounds for making the demand, or b) that the use of menaces is a proper means of enforcing that demand.
16 of 17
What does the case of Harvey determine?
It determines that it is a qesution of the jury to decide whether D held one of these beliefs
17 of 17

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What does the case of Collister & Warhurst confirm?

Back

It confirms that a demand is a request that can be expressed or implied

Card 3

Front

What case confirms that the demand can be in writing, or verbal, and does not need to be recieved?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What did the case of Thorne v Motor Trade Association define?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What is the definition of menaces?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Property Offences resources »