Introduction to Blackmail
In this chapter, we look at Blackmail, a serious offence found in Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968. While it is grouped with property offences like theft and robbery, blackmail is unique because it focuses on the pressure or threats used to get what someone wants.
Think of it as a "demand with a threat." It doesn't matter if the victim actually gives in; the crime happens the moment the demand is made. Don't worry if the legal language seems a bit dense; we will break down the statute piece by piece.
The Legal Definition: Section 21(1)
According to 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.
To understand this, we divide it into two parts: the Actus Reus (the physical act) and the Mens Rea (the mental state).
1. The Actus Reus: What must happen?
The physical part of blackmail consists of two elements occurring at the same time: a demand and menaces.
A. The Demand
A demand can be made in any form. It does not have to be spoken out loud; it can be written in a letter, sent in an email, or even implied through gestures.
Example: Sending a text message saying "Give me \$500 or I'll tell your boss you've been stealing" is a clear demand.
Important Point: The demand is "made" as soon as it is addressed to the victim. It doesn't even have to reach the victim for the defendant to be liable, as long as the defendant has done everything they can to communicate it.
B. With Menaces
The word "menaces" is a legal term for a strong threat. It is more than just a simple request or a mild warning. Menaces include threats of violence, but they can also include threats to do things that are perfectly legal, such as reporting a crime to the police or revealing a secret to a newspaper.
The test for "menaces" is usually whether the threat is strong enough to influence an ordinary person. However, if the defendant knows that the victim is particularly timid or easily frightened, a lesser threat might still count as menaces.
Quick Summary Takeaway:
The Actus Reus is simply: Demand + Menaces. The crime is "complete" the moment that demand is made.
2. The Mens Rea: What was the defendant thinking?
To be guilty, the defendant must have a specific state of mind. This is divided into two requirements.
A. The Demand must be "Unwarranted"
Section 21 provides a specific test to decide if a demand is "unwarranted." A demand with menaces is always unwarranted UNLESS the person making it believes both of the following:
- That he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; AND
- That the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
This is a subjective test. We look at what the defendant actually believed, not what a "reasonable person" would believe.
Example: If a person believes someone owes them money (reasonable grounds) but threatens to burn their house down to get it, they likely won't be able to argue that burning a house is a "proper means." Therefore, the demand remains unwarranted.
B. View to Gain or Intent to Cause Loss
The defendant must make the demand because they want to "gain" something for themselves (or someone else) or because they want to cause a "loss" to the victim.
Under the Theft Act, "gain" and "loss" are restricted to money or other property. This includes "keeping what one has" or "not getting what one might get."
Common Pitfall: If someone uses threats to force someone to marry them or to do a non-financial favor, it might be a different crime, but it is not blackmail because there is no gain or loss of property.
Step-by-Step Breakdown of Section 21
When looking at a scenario in Paper 2, follow these steps:
Step 1: Was there a demand? (Look for a request or order).
Step 2: Were there menaces? (Was the threat serious enough?).
Step 3: Did the defendant intend to gain or cause a loss of money/property?
Step 4: Was the demand unwarranted? (Did the defendant really believe they had the right to the property AND that the threat was a proper way to get it?).
Quick Review: Key Terms
Menaces: A serious threat that would influence an ordinary person.
Unwarranted: Not justified. A demand is only "warranted" if the defendant believes they have a right to the item and the threat is a "proper" way to get it.
Gain/Loss: Limited to money and property (not feelings or favors).
Did you know?
A person can be guilty of blackmail even if they are demanding something they are legally owed! For example, if a landlord threatens to break a tenant's legs unless they pay the rent, it is still blackmail. Even though the landlord has "reasonable grounds" to ask for the rent, breaking legs is never a "proper means" of getting it.
Sentencing Context
Blackmail is considered a very serious offence because of the "ugly" nature of the pressure put on victims. Under the general rules for Topic 2.3 (Sentencing), the courts consider the level of fear caused to the victim and the value of the property involved when deciding the punishment. It is an indictable-only offence, meaning it is so serious it must be dealt with in the Crown Court.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
1. Thinking the threat must be illegal: A threat to do something legal (like reporting a crime) can still be blackmail if the defendant uses it to get money and doesn't believe it's a "proper means."
2. Thinking the victim must be scared: The crime is about the defendant's conduct. Even if the victim is very brave and ignores the threat, the defendant is still guilty of blackmail for making the demand.
3. Forgetting the "Property" rule: Always check if the demand is for money or property. If the demand is for a "date" or "friendship," it is not blackmail under s21.
Key Takeaway
Blackmail (s21) is essentially using "menaces" (threats) to make a "demand" for property/money, where the defendant knows their demand is "unwarranted." Focus on the subjective belief of the defendant regarding "reasonable grounds" and "proper means" to determine if they are guilty.