3.3 Blackmail

Question 1

Under which Act and section is the offence of blackmail defined?

Answer 1

Theft Act 1968, s. 21.

Question 2

How is the offence of blackmail classified in terms of triability?

Answer 2

Triable on indictment.

Question 3

What is the maximum term of imprisonment for a conviction of blackmail?

Answer 3

14 years’ imprisonment.

Question 4

State the three core elements that constitute blackmail under s. 21.

Answer 4

Making an unwarranted demand, with menaces, with a view to gain or intent to cause loss.

Question 5

According to R v Zaman, how does the phrase ‘with a view to’ differ from ‘with intent to’?

Answer 5

It is a less stringent test, meaning the result is contemplated as realistically likely to occur.

Question 6

What must a defendant contemplate for their mental state to satisfy the ‘view to gain’ element?

Answer 6

That a gain is realistically likely to flow from their actions.

Question 7

What is the alternative mental state required if the defendant does not have a view to gain?

Answer 7

An intent to cause loss.

Question 8

To what extent is dishonesty a requirement for the offence of blackmail?

Answer 8

There is no requirement for dishonesty.

Question 9

Does the offence of blackmail focus on the consequences of the demand or the act of making it?

Answer 9

The making of the demand.

Question 10

Under s. 34 of the 1968 Act, what specific categories define ‘gain’ and ‘loss’?

Answer 10

Money or other property.

Question 11

How does s. 34(2) define the duration of a gain or loss?

Answer 11

It can be either temporary or permanent.

Question 12

What is the definition of ‘gain’ in terms of current possession under s. 34(2)?

Answer 12

A gain by keeping what one has.

Question 13

What is the definition of ‘gain’ in terms of acquisition under s. 34(2)?

Answer 13

A gain by getting what one has not.

Question 14

What is the definition of ‘loss’ in terms of current possession under s. 34(2)?

Answer 14

A loss by parting with what one has.

Question 15

What is the definition of ‘loss’ in terms of potential acquisition under s. 34(2)?

Answer 15

A loss by not getting what one might get.

Question 16

In the context of gambling, how can avoiding a loss on a bet be legally defined as a ‘gain’?

Answer 16

It constitutes keeping what one already has.

Question 17

What legal principle regarding material profit was established in R v Bevans (1988)?

Answer 17

A blackmailer need not be seeking a material profit if the demand involves property.

Question 18

Why was a demand for a morphine injection at gunpoint considered blackmail in R v Bevans?

Answer 18

The drug involved was a form of property.

Question 19

Why would a demand for sexual favours not constitute blackmail?

Answer 19

Sexual favours are not considered money or other property.

Question 20

At what specific moment is the offence of blackmail complete?

Answer 20

When the demand with menaces is made.

Question 21

Why is it considered nearly impossible to have an offence of ‘attempted’ blackmail?

Answer 21

The defendant will have either prepared the demand or already completed it by making it.

Question 22

According to Treacy v DPP, when is a demand made by letter considered complete?

Answer 22

At the moment the letter is posted.

Question 23

Is the receipt of a blackmailing letter necessary for the offence to be legally complete?

Answer 23

No.

Question 24

How did the Court of Appeal define ‘menaces’ in R v Clear?

Answer 24

Threats of such a nature that a person of normal stability and courage might be influenced.

Question 25

When can a threat that would not influence a normal person still be considered 'menaces'?

Answer 25

If the threat has particular significance to the victim and the defendant is aware of it.

Question 26

What case allows a victim's specific timidity to be taken into account when assessing 'menaces'?

Answer 26

R v Garwood [1987].

Question 27

What is the legal status of an apparently serious threat that fails to intimidate a specific victim?

Answer 27

The offence is still committed if the threat would influence a person of normal stability.

Question 28

What are the two subjective beliefs a defendant must hold for a demand to be 'warranted'?

Answer 28

Belief in reasonable grounds for the demand and that menaces are a proper means of reinforcement.

Question 29

Under s. 21(1), who must prove that the defendant's demand was 'unwarranted'?

Answer 29

The prosecution.

Question 30

What is the restriction on the subjective belief of 'proper means' established in R v Harvey?

Answer 30

No act which is not believed to be lawful can be described as a proper means.

Question 31

In R v Harvey, why was the defendant's conviction for blackmail upheld despite his claim of 'proper' threats?

Answer 31

No jury could believe that threats to kill, maim, and rape were a proper means.

Question 32

To whom is the question of the defendant's genuine belief in 'proper' means usually left?

Answer 32

The jury.

Question 33

According to s. 21(2), what is the materiality of the nature of the act or omission demanded?

Answer 33

It is immaterial.

Question 34

Does a menace have to relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand?

Answer 34

No, it is immaterial whether the menaces relate to such action.

Question 35

In the case of R v Harvey, what was the defendant attempting to recover?

Answer 35

Money paid for what he believed was cannabis.

Question 36

What did the judge in R v Harvey state regarding threats to commit serious offences?

Answer 36

They cannot be a proper means of reinforcing a demand as a matter of law.

Question 37

What is the requirement for theft to occur for a blackmail charge to succeed?

Answer 37

There is no requirement for theft.

Question 38

In the context of 'gain', what does 'keeping what one has' include?

Answer 38

Avoiding the loss of existing assets.

Question 39

In the context of 'loss', what does 'not getting what one might get' include?

Answer 39

The prevention of a potential gain, such as expected winnings.

Question 40

If a defendant threatens to break a victim's legs for £50, is the offence committed even if the victim is unconcerned?

Answer 40

Yes, because the threat would influence a person of normal stability.

Question 41

What is the primary objective of the law against blackmail according to s. 21?

Answer 41

To penalise the making of unwarranted demands with menaces regardless of the result.

Question 42

Why is the defendant's belief in the 'warranted' nature of a demand described as subjective?

Answer 42

It depends on what the defendant actually believed, even if that belief was unreasonable.

Question 43

Can a lawful debt be the subject of blackmail?

Answer 43

Yes, if the demand is reinforced with menaces that the defendant does not believe are proper means.

Question 44

What example of a specific significance threat is provided regarding claustrophobia?

Answer 44

A threat of being locked in the boot of a car.

Question 45

How does the phrase 'unwarranted' relate to the defendant's subjective belief?

Answer 45

A demand is unwarranted unless the defendant genuinely believes they have reasonable grounds and the means are proper.

Question 46

What is the legal effect if a defendant makes a demand with menaces but does not care if the gain occurs?

Answer 46

The 'view to gain' element is satisfied if they contemplate the gain as realistically likely.

Question 47

What is the significance of s. 34 of the Theft Act 1968 to blackmail?

Answer 47

It provides the statutory definitions for the terms 'gain' and 'loss'.

Question 48

Does the 14-year maximum sentence for blackmail apply to all convictions?

Answer 48

Yes, as the offence is triable only on indictment.

Question 49

If a defendant believes an act is unlawful, can they argue it was a 'proper means' of reinforcing a demand?

Answer 49

No.

Question 50

What must be proven if a defendant raises the issue that their demand was reasonable?

Answer 50

That the defendant did not genuinely believe they had reasonable grounds or that the means were proper.