Blackmail as defined in s21 Theft Act 1968 — practice questions

1. Demand: Nina's email contains an implicit demand for payment — s21 covers explicit and implicit demands.

2. Menaces: 'Tell your employer about gambling debts' is a threat designed to pressure Omar. R v Lawrence & Pomroy — menaces are threats of such nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person might be influenced. Disclosure of embarrassing information to an employer likely qualifies.

3. Unwarranted: s21(1) proviso — a demand is not unwarranted if D believes he had reasonable grounds and uses proper means. Nina may have reasonable grounds (genuine debt), but threatening disclosure to an employer is unlikely to be proper means of debt recovery — compare R v Harvey (lawful demand + improper threat = blackmail).

4. View to gain / intent to cause loss: Nina seeks gain (recovering £500) — s34(2)(a) includes keeping what one has. Alternatively, causing Omar loss by forcing payment.

5. Mens rea: D must make the demand with the required view to gain/loss — Nina's purpose is clearly to obtain payment.

Conclusion: Nina is likely guilty of blackmail despite a genuine debt. Proper civil remedies (small claims court) would be proper means; threatening exposure is not.

Actus reus: unwarranted demand with menaces — threat to publish photos is menaces (Thorne v MTA).

Mens rea: view to gain ( — 2,000) under s34(2)(a).

Sentencing: blackmail is triable either way; max 14 years on indictment — severity reflects abuse of coercive power even where the underlying grievance is real.