Potential criminal liability of Eddie: Fraud by failure to disclose. Making off without payment.
Potential criminal liability of George: Blackmail.
In relation to the criminal liability of George to blackmail: Section 21 of TA 1968 provides for the offence
of blackmail which states that a person commits the offence of blackmail when he makes any
unwarranted demand with menaces with the intention to make gain or cause loss to another.
AR Element of Blackmail: Demand made with menaces.
Demand: A demand must be financial in nature. The word ‘demand’ is to be given its ordinary meaning
(as per Treacy v DPP) and can be either expressed or implied (as per R v Collister and Warhurst).
On the facts, the demand made by George to Eddie to make him pay 5000 pounds was done verbally
and expressly.
Menaces: The demand must be made with a threat. And as stated in Thorne v Motor Trade Association,
the threat would include actions which is detrimental or unpleasant to the person addressed. And that
threat must be capable of making an ordinary person to give in to that demand.
On the facts, the threat of beating up Eddie was made by George, which is detrimental and unpleasant
in nature. And in addition any person of an ordinary standard would give in to the demand once such a
threat was addressed upon him. Thus the demand made by George was with the element of menaces.
MR Element of Blackmail: intention to make gain or cause loss. Unwarranted demand.
Intention to make gain or cause loss: the demand must be made with the view to make a gain or to
cause a loss. Section 34(2)(a) provides for the definition of gain and loss. Gain refers to the keeping of
something which one has. While loss refers to something which is not beneficial in nature.
On the facts, the demand made by George was made with the intention to make a 5000 pound gain for
himself and cause a loss of 5000 pounds to Eddie.
Unwarranted demand: Subsections of Section 21 of TA 1968 provides for a test to be fulfilled in order to
show that the demand is a warranted one. The subsection states that the defendant’s demand will be
unwarranted unless the demand was made on a reasonable grounds (as per section 21(1)(a) of TA 1968)
and the use of menace is a proper means of reinforcing the demand (as per section 21(1)(b) of TA 1968).
On the facts, the demand made by George may be reasonable as the basis of his demand would be to
make Eddie return the money to Fred as the motorbike which Eddie sold to Fred was not functioning as
it should be. However, the threat to use force against Eddie may not be the proper means of reinforcing
the demand.
It seems that George’s offence of blackmail is established, however, he can make defense stating that he
believed that his demand was warranted, as the demand made to Eddie may have been for the benefit
of Fred.
Potential criminal liability of George: Blackmail.
In relation to the criminal liability of George to blackmail: Section 21 of TA 1968 provides for the offence
of blackmail which states that a person commits the offence of blackmail when he makes any
unwarranted demand with menaces with the intention to make gain or cause loss to another.
AR Element of Blackmail: Demand made with menaces.
Demand: A demand must be financial in nature. The word ‘demand’ is to be given its ordinary meaning
(as per Treacy v DPP) and can be either expressed or implied (as per R v Collister and Warhurst).
On the facts, the demand made by George to Eddie to make him pay 5000 pounds was done verbally
and expressly.
Menaces: The demand must be made with a threat. And as stated in Thorne v Motor Trade Association,
the threat would include actions which is detrimental or unpleasant to the person addressed. And that
threat must be capable of making an ordinary person to give in to that demand.
On the facts, the threat of beating up Eddie was made by George, which is detrimental and unpleasant
in nature. And in addition any person of an ordinary standard would give in to the demand once such a
threat was addressed upon him. Thus the demand made by George was with the element of menaces.
MR Element of Blackmail: intention to make gain or cause loss. Unwarranted demand.
Intention to make gain or cause loss: the demand must be made with the view to make a gain or to
cause a loss. Section 34(2)(a) provides for the definition of gain and loss. Gain refers to the keeping of
something which one has. While loss refers to something which is not beneficial in nature.
On the facts, the demand made by George was made with the intention to make a 5000 pound gain for
himself and cause a loss of 5000 pounds to Eddie.
Unwarranted demand: Subsections of Section 21 of TA 1968 provides for a test to be fulfilled in order to
show that the demand is a warranted one. The subsection states that the defendant’s demand will be
unwarranted unless the demand was made on a reasonable grounds (as per section 21(1)(a) of TA 1968)
and the use of menace is a proper means of reinforcing the demand (as per section 21(1)(b) of TA 1968).
On the facts, the demand made by George may be reasonable as the basis of his demand would be to
make Eddie return the money to Fred as the motorbike which Eddie sold to Fred was not functioning as
it should be. However, the threat to use force against Eddie may not be the proper means of reinforcing
the demand.
It seems that George’s offence of blackmail is established, however, he can make defense stating that he
believed that his demand was warranted, as the demand made to Eddie may have been for the benefit
of Fred.
