Blackmail As Defined In S21 Theft Act 1968 (Copy)

1. Introduction to Blackmail

• Blackmail is a serious property offense under Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968.
• The common perception is threatening to expose personal information unless a victim pays money.
• However, blackmail extends beyond monetary extortion and covers any unwarranted demands with menaces.
• The offense is linked to liability, as the legal system aims to protect individuals from coercion.

2. Definition of Blackmail (Section 21 of the 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.”

• A demand is unwarranted unless:
  1. The person making it believes they have reasonable grounds for doing so.
  2. The person making it believes the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcement.

2.1 Key Elements of Blackmail

To convict someone of blackmail, four elements must be proven:

1. A demand
2. That is unwarranted
3. Made with menaces
4. With a view to gain or an intent to cause loss

3. Actus Reus of Blackmail

The actus reus consists of:

1. Making a demand
2. The demand being unwarranted
3. Using menaces to support the demand

3.1 The Demand

• The demand can take any form:
  • Spoken words
  • Written communication (letters, texts, emails)
  • Implied behavior
• Case Example: R v Collister & Warhurst (1955)
  • Two police officers implied that they would not report a victim if he paid them money.
  • The implied demand was sufficient for blackmail.
• Case Example: Treacy v DPP (1971)
  • A demand made by sending a letter is complete once posted, even if the victim never receives it.
• Case Example: R v Pogmore (2017)
  • A blackmailer outside England sent threats to a victim in the UK.
  • The court ruled that blackmail can occur in the UK if the victim is affected there.

3.2 The Demand Must Be Unwarranted

• A demand is automatically unwarranted unless:
  • The defendant genuinely believes they had reasonable grounds.
  • The defendant genuinely believes using menaces was proper.
• Case Example: R v Harvey (1981)
  • A man paid £20,000 for illegal drugs, but the drugs were fake.
  • He kidnapped the seller’s family and made violent threats to get his money back.
  • The court ruled that even if he believed the demand was justified, threats of violence made it unwarranted.

3.3 The Demand Must Be Made with Menaces

• Menaces include threats of physical, financial, or reputational harm.
• The threat does not need to be illegal, just enough to cause fear.
• Case Example: R v Lawrence & Pomroy (1971)
  • Two builders used threatening language and gestures to demand payment.
  • The court ruled that menaces include threats of violence or intimidation.
• Case Example: R v Clear (1968)
  • The threat must be serious enough to influence an ordinary person.
• Case Example: R v Garwood (1987)
  • If the blackmailer knows the victim is particularly vulnerable, even a minor threat can count as menaces.
• Case Example: R v Harry (1974)
  • A charity event organizer sent letters asking for donations, implying businesses might face inconvenience if they refused.
  • The court ruled that if only a few victims feel intimidated, it may not be blackmail.

4. Mens Rea of Blackmail

To be guilty of blackmail, the defendant must:

1. Intend to make an unwarranted demand with menaces.
2. Act with a view to gain or an intent to cause loss.
3. Not believe they had reasonable grounds or that menaces were proper.

4.1 Intention to Make an Unwarranted Demand with Menaces

• The intention must be deliberate; accidental threats do not count.
• The defendant does not need to intend to carry out the menace, only to make the demand.

4.2 With a View to Gain or Intent to Cause Loss

• “Gain” and “Loss” must involve money or property.
• Case Example: R v Bevans (1988)
  • A defendant pointed a gun at a doctor to demand morphine for pain relief.
  • The court ruled morphine was property, making it blackmail.

4.3 Not Believing the Demand Was Justified

• If the defendant believes they had reasonable grounds, they may not be guilty.
• If they know their demand is unjustified, they are guilty.

5. Sentencing for Blackmail

• Blackmail is an indictable offense, meaning it is tried in the Crown Court.
• Maximum Sentence: 14 years’ imprisonment.
• There are no specific sentencing guidelines, but general sentencing principles apply.

5.1 Factors Affecting Sentencing

• Aggravating Factors (Increasing Sentence):
  • Use of violence or weapons.
  • Threats to family members or vulnerable victims.
  • Targeting high-profile individuals for extortion.
• Mitigating Factors (Reducing Sentence):
  • First-time offender.
  • Lack of actual harm caused.
  • Cooperation with authorities.

6. Evaluation of Blackmail Law

6.1 Strengths

✔ Protects individuals from coercion.
✔ Covers a wide range of threats (physical, financial, reputational).
✔ Does not require actual harm—just the threat of harm.

6.2 Weaknesses

❌ The law is broad—some innocent demands could be seen as blackmail.
❌ Difficult to prove unwarranted demands—subjective beliefs create uncertainty.
❌ No requirement for the demand to be received—letters can be sent but never opened.

7. Conclusion

• Blackmail is a serious crime involving unwarranted demands with threats.
• The law protects individuals from being coerced into giving up money or property.
• The offense requires both actus reus (a demand with menaces) and mens rea (intent to gain or cause loss).
• While effective, some aspects of the law remain unclear, particularly regarding unwarranted demands.
• Potential reforms could include:
  • Stronger guidelines on what counts as “unwarranted”.
  • Clarification on acceptable levels of threats (e.g., legal consequences vs. blackmail).