2.2.4 Blackmail – s.21 Theft Act 1968

Statutory Provision

• s.21(1) Theft Act 1968:
  • “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 belief—
    (a) 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.”
• Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment (indictable only).

Actus Reus of Blackmail

The actus reus has three essential elements:

1. A demand
2. With menaces
3. That is unwarranted (unless protected by s.21(1)(a)–(b))

1. A Demand

• Demand may be express (spoken/written) or implied (conduct).
• Timing: offence complete as soon as demand is made — whether or not victim complies.
• Case: Treacy v DPP [1971] AC 537
  • D posted letter from England to Germany demanding money with threats. Held: offence complete once letter posted, even though not received. Blackmail is complete when demand communicated (or posted).
• Case: Collister v Warhurst [1955] 2 QB 67
  • Two police officers hinted to suspect that “things could be easier” if he paid. Held: demand can be implied from conduct, not just explicit words.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

2. With Menaces

• “Menaces” interpreted widely to cover threats of action detrimental to or unpleasant for the victim.
• Not confined to violence — can include threats of exposure, harassment, economic harm.
• Case: Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797
  • Defined menaces as threats “of such a nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive.”
• Case: R v Clear [1968] 1 QB 670
  • Test: Menaces = threats “serious enough to influence a person of ordinary firmness.”
• Case: R v Garwood (1987) 84 Cr App R 190
  • If D knows victim is particularly vulnerable, even lesser threats can amount to menaces.

3. Unwarranted Demand

• Demand with menaces is unwarranted unless BOTH limbs satisfied:
  1. D believes he has reasonable grounds for making demand.
  2. D believes menaces are proper means of enforcing demand.
• Subjective test: what D believed, not whether demand objectively proper.
• Case: R v Harvey [1981] 72 Cr App R 142
  • Ds demanded money from man who defrauded them, threatening rape and murder of his wife/child.
  • Although they believed demand was justified, threats were grossly disproportionate. Court: threat of serious violence can never be “proper means.”
• Case: R v Lawrence & Pomroy [1971] 57 Cr App R 64
  • D demanded money with vague threats to “sort it out.” Held: jury decides whether threats amount to menaces and whether demand unwarranted.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Special Features of the Actus Reus

• Offence is complete on making demand, even if:
  • No money is paid.
  • Victim ignores or resists.
• Demand can be lawful in substance (e.g., repayment of debt) but still blackmail if menaces used in an improper way.
• Menaces judged partly by ordinary person standard but also sensitive to victim’s vulnerability (Garwood).

Evaluation

• Strengths:
  • Wide definition ensures protection against threats beyond physical violence.
  • Covers psychological and economic coercion.
  • Subjective test for unwarranted demand prevents liability where defendant genuinely enforces legitimate rights lawfully.
• Weaknesses:
  • Breadth of “menaces” criticised as uncertain (Clear test vague).
  • Reliance on defendant’s belief about propriety can make prosecutions complex.
  • Grey area between legitimate hard bargaining (e.g., commercial negotiations) and blackmail.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Reform Proposals

• Law Commission (1993, 2002): Suggested clearer statutory wording for “menaces” to reduce uncertainty.
• Recommended distinction between:
  • Legitimate pressure in civil disputes, and
  • Criminal threats undermining consent.
• Some academics propose codifying “illegitimate threats” as the core test.

Exam Application Strategy

1. Quote statutory wording (s.21).
2. Apply actus reus:
   • Demand (Treacy, Collister).
   • Menaces (Thorne, Clear, Garwood).
   • Unwarranted demand (Harvey, Lawrence & Pomroy).
3. Conclude whether actus reus proven.

Conclusion

• Actus reus of blackmail under s.21 Theft Act 1968 = making a demand with menaces that is unwarranted.
• Case law confirms demand can be implied (Collister), menaces widely defined (Thorne, Clear), and unwarranted demand depends on defendant’s belief (Harvey).
• Offence complete once demand made, even without compliance.
• Provides strong protection against coercion, but criticised for lack of clarity in borderline cases.