Transcript Blackmail - Teaching With Crump!

Blackmail
Lesson Objectives
• I will be able to state the definition of
blackmail
• I will be able to explain the actus reus and
mens rea of blackmail
• I will be able to explain cases that illustrate
the law on blackmail
• I will be able to apply the rules to a given
situation
Introduction
• Blackmail involves a threat made so that a
person does an act against his will, or in order to
obtain the person’s money or property.
• It is a threat from the blackmailer to do
something for not agreeing to the demand.
• The threat doesn’t have to be something illegal
and doesn’t even have to be true.
Definition
•
Blackmail is defined in s21 of the Theft Act 1968 as:
1) 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 purpose a demand with menaces
is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in
the beliefa) That he has reasonable grounds for making the
demand; and
b) That the use of the menaces is a proper means of
reinforcing the demand
2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial,
and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to
action to be taken by the person making the demand
The actus reus of blackmail, therefore, has two aspects:
1 – unwarranted demand
2 – menaces
The mens rea of blackmail has 3 aspects:
1 – an intention to make a demand with menaces
2 – doing so with a view to gain for himself or another or with
intent to cause loss to another
3 – either
– A) not believing he has reasonable grounds for making the demand,
or
– B) not believing that the use of the menaces is a proper means of
reinforcing the demand
• There are, therefore, a number of points that
need to be considered for the offence of
blackmail. These are:
•
•
•
•
What amounts to an unwarranted demand?
What amounts to ‘menaces’?
The defendant's view to gain or loss
The defendant's belief as to reasonable grounds
for making the demand
• The defendant’s belief that use of the menaces
is a proper means of reinforcing the demand
What amounts to an
unwarranted demand?
• The demand can be made either expressly, or
impliedly. Usually the demand is made
expressly, such as an oral or written demand for
a sum of money for not exposing some possible
scandal. It also appears that the demand can be
made impliedly:
• Collister and Warhurst (1955) – the demand in
blackmail can be implied as well as expressed; it
will be implied when a jury (the reasonable man)
can see from the attitude, actions and
circumstances that the defendant is making a
demand
• The demand is made when the defendant has
done all he can to communicate the demand –
Treacy v DPP (1971) – a demand is made when
the defendant has done all he can to
communicate the demand
• The demand must be unwarranted. This means
that it must be for something that the defendant
is not legally entitled. Thus, a demand is not
unwarranted if it is for money legally owing to the
defendant. It would also not be unwarranted if
the claimed debt turned out not to be legally
enforceable. This is because the defendant
would believe he had reasonable grounds for
making the demand.
What amounts to ‘menaces’?
• A menace can be threats of violence,
including threats of any action detrimental
to or unpleasant to the person addressed.
It may also include a warning that, in
certain events, such action is intended
• Thorne v Motor Trade Association (1937) –
this case provides an explanation as to
meaning of the word menaces (see above)
• It is also the case that the effect of the demand
must be that the reasonable person would be
influenced or fearful so that the demand was
likely to be met. However, if the person to whom
the threat is made is known by the defendant to
be particularly timid, then threats which d not
affect the reasonable person can still be taken
as menaces – Garwood (1987)
• An example of threats that do not amount to
menaces can be seen in the case of Harry
(1974) – the case involved a letter to
shopkeepers on a rag week procession route
that sought contributions to the charities to avoid
‘inconvenience’
The defendant’s view to
gain or loss
•
In s34(2) of the Theft Act 1968 there are definitions:
2. For purposes of this Act –
a) ‘gain’ and ‘loss’ are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in
money or other property, but as extending to any such gain or loss
whether temporary or permanent; and –
i) ‘gain’ includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by
getting what one has not; and
ii) ‘loss’ includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss
by parting with what one has
This means that the intended result of the blackmail involves some
money or property rather than something of no monetary value such as
a kiss. Things of economic value, such as a morphine injection to get
pain relief from a doctor, are sufficient for blackmail – Bevans (1988)
The defendant’s belief as to reasonable grounds
for making the demands, and that the use of the
menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the
demand
The key things about these defences to a charge of
blackmail is that the defendant believed there were
reasonable grounds for making the demand or believing
that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing
his demand.
The belief must be genuinely held and can be a moral
rather than a legal belief, but a belief that would
generally be viewed as immoral is no defence – Harvey
(1981)
Exam Qs