Blackmail
Steve Firth
blackmail in monetary terms. Does this mean that a threat issued in
writing can only be blackmail if there is a demand for money or property
or can the financial element be indirect?
a...@b.invalid
Textbook say "R v Bevans [1988] Crim LR 237. Gain is not restricted to
money; merely obtaining something she/he did not previously have is
sufficient for this offence" [Bevans wanted a morphine injection]
....but also to consider Malicious Communications if the gain is too
vague to prove.
Alex Heney
wrote:
It can be indirect.
There must be an intention that the blackmailer gain or that the
backmailee lose money or property, but so long as that intent can be
proved, it doesn't have to be an explicit demand for payment (in money
pr property).
And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining
anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop
doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still be
blackmail.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Janitor of Lunacy
The section talks about "with a view to gain" or "with intent to cause
loss". Clearly not the same thing.
The former is more speculative than the latter. There is nothing in the
Theft Act 1968 to limit "gain" or "loss" to purely a financial perspective,
although I have no doubt that the section would be so interpreted, even by
analogy.
Steve Firth
>
> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining
> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop
> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still be
> blackmail.
Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B
attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from attending.
If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company that provides
animals for medical research purposes unless B promises to stop
attending the same social event is that blackmail?
There's no obvious immediate financial element, but there is an intent
to cause a loss to B that is IMO largely intangible. However B might
have a reasonable fear that the revelation could prove damaging
financially (that the revelation would lead to them being forced to
leave their position or that damage to their image could lead to a loss
of confidence in the company and a collapse in dividends).
Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does the
fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this demand to
be something other than blackmail?
Owen Dunn
> Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining
>> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop
>> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still be
>> blackmail.
>
> Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B
> attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from attending.
> If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company that provides
> animals for medical research purposes unless B promises to stop
> attending the same social event is that blackmail?
I think so. B stands to suffer a loss (by not getting what he might
get: attendance at the social event). A made his demand with menaces,
believing his threat would have an effect on B.
(S)
GB
>> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining
>> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop
>> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still
>> be blackmail.
>
> Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B
> attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from
> attending. If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company
> that provides animals for medical research purposes unless B promises
> to stop attending the same social event is that blackmail?
Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
>
> There's no obvious immediate financial element, but there is an intent
> to cause a loss to B that is IMO largely intangible. However B might
> have a reasonable fear that the revelation could prove damaging
> financially (that the revelation would lead to them being forced to
> leave their position or that damage to their image could lead to a
> loss of confidence in the company and a collapse in dividends).
>
> Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does
> the fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this
> demand to be something other than blackmail?
A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go ahead
and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably preventing him
attending these social events anyway. Instead, he seems to be offering B the
option of not having the revelation made. I am just surprised that offering
an option in this way could be classed as blackmail, but ofc I'm not a
lawyer.
--
Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
Man at B&Q
> Steve Firth wrote:
> >> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining
> >> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop
> >> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still
> >> be blackmail.
>
> > Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B
> > attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from
> > attending. If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company
> > that provides animals for medical research purposes unless B promises
> > to stop attending the same social event is that blackmail?
>
> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
>
Does it matter?
>
> > There's no obvious immediate financial element, but there is an intent
> > to cause a loss to B that is IMO largely intangible. However B might
> > have a reasonable fear that the revelation could prove damaging
> > financially (that the revelation would lead to them being forced to
> > leave their position or that damage to their image could lead to a
> > loss of confidence in the company and a collapse in dividends).
>
> > Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does
> > the fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this
> > demand to be something other than blackmail?
>
> A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go ahead
> and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably preventing him
> attending these social events anyway.
Of course, so if he's so sure of himself, why doesn't he?
> Instead, he seems to be offering B the
> option of not having the revelation made.
Instead, he seems to be trying to avoid appearing like a mean spirited
tell tale, and any possible backlash, and is trying to get what he
wants by some underhand means.
> I am just surprised that offering
> an option in this way could be classed as blackmail
Seems quite reasonable to class it as such to me.
MBQ
GB
>> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
>>
>
> Does it matter?
Well, of course it matters whether A is threatening to slander B or is
merely giving him advance warning that he'll be outed if he attends the next
meeting.
>> A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go
>> ahead and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably
>> preventing him attending these social events anyway.
>
> Of course, so if he's so sure of himself, why doesn't he?
>
>> Instead, he seems to be offering B the
>> option of not having the revelation made.
>
> Instead, he seems to be trying to avoid appearing like a mean spirited
> tell tale, and any possible backlash, and is trying to get what he
> wants by some underhand means.
>
>> I am just surprised that offering
>> an option in this way could be classed as blackmail
>
> Seems quite reasonable to class it as such to me.
Okay, let's give a concrete example. Suppose B is indeed selling animals for
vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly
meetings*. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of course, he
can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him being lynched.
Instead, A warns B off.
So, you still think A is mean-spirited? You still think that's blackmail?
I accept that I've created quite a special situation here, but I'm just
trying to define the end points of the OP's question.
*Maybe he likes animals or maybe he's being cynical and thinks this will
deflect attention away from his own firm.
Mark Goodge
>Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>> There's no obvious immediate financial element, but there is an intent
>> to cause a loss to B that is IMO largely intangible. However B might
>> have a reasonable fear that the revelation could prove damaging
>> financially (that the revelation would lead to them being forced to
>> leave their position or that damage to their image could lead to a
>> loss of confidence in the company and a collapse in dividends).
>>
>> Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does
>> the fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this
>> demand to be something other than blackmail?
>
>A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go ahead
>and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably preventing him
>attending these social events anyway. Instead, he seems to be offering B the
>option of not having the revelation made. I am just surprised that offering
>an option in this way could be classed as blackmail, but ofc I'm not a
>lawyer.
In most cases of blackmail, the putative blackmailer could just go ahead
and tell everyone what they know anyway. Unless any law was broken in the
course of obtaining the information, there's nothing to stop them. For
example, if I happen to know that one of my colleagues is having an affair
with his neighbour[1], and the reason I know that is because my colleague
was indiscreet enough to brag about it at work, then I would not be
breaking any law at all by passing this information on to my colleage's
neighbour's husband. Some people might even suggest that I have a moral
obligation to do just that. But if, instead of just telling the unfortunate
husband, I was to tell my colleage that I'd drop him in it unless he agrees
to let me have his parking space at the office, then it's blackmail.
The same applies in Steve's hypotetical scenario. The fact that A might
feel there is a very good reason to tell everyone about B's actions doesn't
change the fact that if he uses that knowledge as a threat to try to get B
to comply with his wishes then it is blackmail.
[1] This is entirely hypothetical, of course, and I know no such thing.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
D.M. Procida
> The fact that A might feel there is a very good reason to tell everyone
> about B's actions doesn't change the fact that if he uses that knowledge
> as a threat to try to get B to comply with his wishes then it is
> blackmail.
If A (concerned) says to B (louche, exploitative and callous): if you
continue flirting with C (naive and vulnerable) I will tell her what you
did to D (distressed and creully mistreated), is that blackmail?
Is it blackmail just because it's a threat?
Saying: if you don't do X I will do Y is a threat.
It's not blackmail when X is "pay me damages for some injury", and Y is
"take you to court".
It is when X is "pay me money" and Y is "show your wife pictures of you
with my prostitutes".
Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not others?
Daniele
Percy Picacity
news:1jvgq9e.1ubx9q7vqe9ylN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-
juice.co
.uk:
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The fact that A might feel there is a very good reason to tell
>> everyone about B's actions doesn't change the fact that if he
>> uses that knowledge as a threat to try to get B to comply with
>> his wishes then it is blackmail.
>
> If A (concerned) says to B (louche, exploitative and callous): if
> you continue flirting with C (naive and vulnerable) I will tell
> her what you did to D (distressed and creully mistreated), is that
> blackmail?
IMO yes. If A just tells C that is fine.
>
> Is it blackmail just because it's a threat?
Yes
>
> Saying: if you don't do X I will do Y is a threat.
>
> It's not blackmail when X is "pay me damages for some injury", and
> Y is "take you to court".
I think that taking someone to court is a specifically protected
form of aggression - but even then to threaten a case in order to
embarrass someone rather than in order to win could be blackmail???
What does a lawyer think?
>
> It is when X is "pay me money" and Y is "show your wife pictures
> of you with my prostitutes".
>
> Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not
> others?
There was a thread on here recently about someone threatening to
report an unconnected crime if the other party did not forgo a debt.
Most people seemed to think this was blackmail. There are actually
rather few threats that could not be construed as blackmail if done
to change the other party's actions.
How about a threat to defend oneself if attacked? Could this be
blackmail? I doubt it if the attack would be itself illegal.
>
> Daniele
>
--
Percy Picacity
Alex Heney
Because it is only if the menaces are "unwarranted" that it is
blackmail.
And what the law says is:
------------------------------------------------------------
or 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So in the first of your cases, it is not unwarranted, unless the
demand is for more money than could possibly be expected to be won in
court, or there would be no reasonable prospect of winning the court
case.
If the threat of court action is one which could not actually be
carried out, or which had no chance of success, then it probably would
be blackmail.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The fact that A might feel there is a very good reason to tell everyone
>> about B's actions doesn't change the fact that if he uses that knowledge
>> as a threat to try to get B to comply with his wishes then it is
>> blackmail.
>
>If A (concerned) says to B (louche, exploitative and callous): if you
>continue flirting with C (naive and vulnerable) I will tell her what you
>did to D (distressed and creully mistreated), is that blackmail?
No.
It would become blackmail if A says to B "I'll tell C what you did to D if
you don't pay to keep it quiet".
>
>Is it blackmail just because it's a threat?
>
>Saying: if you don't do X I will do Y is a threat.
>
>It's not blackmail when X is "pay me damages for some injury", and Y is
>"take you to court".
>
>It is when X is "pay me money" and Y is "show your wife pictures of you
>with my prostitutes".
>
>Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not others?
Because that's how the law defines it.
D.M. Procida
> >Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not others?
>
> Because that's how the law defines it.
But the law doesn't give lists of things that are and aren't blackmail,
it gives (Alex's answer) conditions that must be met for a threat not to
be blackmail:
* one has reasonable grounds for making the demand that's being backed
up by the threat; and
* the threat is a 'proper means' of backing up demands
Daniele
Ret.
There is a useful summary of the issues surrounding blackmail here:
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/blackmail.htm
--
Kev
Steve Firth
> There is a useful summary of the issues surrounding blackmail here:
>
> http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/blackmail.htm
That is extremely useful. But the question of "gain" is still not
clarified within that page.
I can see that where money, discount, promotion are involved that the
gain (or loss) is simple to prove. However the nature of a social
situation is more tenuous.
Is an attempt by an individual to puff up his own ego, while doing down
another sufficient of a gain for blackmail to be proven?
Again I'm thinking of a situation in which one party attempts to
blackmail (I can't think of a better word at present) another in order
to gain some real or imaginary social advancement or some desired social
outcome by a threat to reveal information.
I would also like to know if the veracity of that information is ever at
issue. I don't think, either from my reading of the Theft Act or from
that page that is referred to above, that truth is an essential
component of blackmail. The blackmailer simply has to believe the tale
he is telling, and needs to accompany that tale with a demand for "gain"
on his part or "loss" on the part the victim.
Indeed the nature of the menacing threat seems to be very broad, and the
page referred to states that "The menaces can be express or implied"
hence a threat of the following nature:
"Whether or not you would like [this information being revealed to
people who know you] is up to you.
"You [did something I don't like] and I [will publish information that
has come to my attention which I believe to be embarassing to you] if
that is what you want. I'm sure that quite a few of [the people who know
you] would take delight in your embarassment.
"What I would prefer, is for you to [comply with a demand I made to you
earlier that does not involve payment or loss]."
Now, the question is, does the above amount to blackmail? On the face of
it, to me, that is a fairly standard blackmail letter but the demand
being made is not obviously one that leads to "gain". It is possible
that the blackmailer may be said to have "gained" by having their
demands agreed to, is that sufficient "gain" to establish that the
communication is blackmail?
If it does not, does it fall within the definition of "Malicious
Communications"? It does seem to be a message sent solely with the
purpose of causing distress or anxiety. Again, my interpretation of both
the Theft Act and the Malicious Communications Act is that the recipient
of the threat does not need to see the threat as credible. The only
issue at stake is the intent of the accused and the belief of the
accused. And once more, the communication does not need to be received
in order for the offence to have been committed.
Am I making any obvious schoolboy errors in my reasoning here?
Steve Firth
> Steve Firth wrote:
> >> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining
> >> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop
> >> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still
> >> be blackmail.
> >
> > Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B
> > attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from
> > attending. If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company
> > that provides animals for medical research purposes unless B promises
> > to stop attending the same social event is that blackmail?
>
> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
[snip]
It's not a real situation, no. I think, and I may be wrong in which case
please correct me, that you are taking the view that the end justifies
the means. In this case your interest in "is this true" gives a feeling
that you may look on the director of a company supplying animals for
medical research in a different way to the way that you would look at
some other person.
The example was chosen to illustrate a situation in which no demand for
payment is obvious, but which creates a situation that one party may not
wish information, in the public domain, to be circulated to a group of
people.
To further complicate the situation we may assume that B actually
doesn't care about the revelation.
B knows that the information that A has obtained is largely false, and
was the result of a smear campaign launched against B by animal
activists in a previous decade. B therefore knows that the "revelation"
that A is threatening to make is hollow.
However as I understand it, the criminal offence of blackmail relates to
issuing threats in order to gain an advantage. There isn't, as far as I
know, any requirement for those threats to be credible or those threats
to be received. The offence is the issuing of the threat.
> > Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does
> > the fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this
> > demand to be something other than blackmail?
>
> A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go ahead
> and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably preventing him
> attending these social events anyway. Instead, he seems to be offering B the
> option of not having the revelation made. I am just surprised that offering
> an option in this way could be classed as blackmail, but ofc I'm not a
> lawyer.
I think you may be misunderstanding blackmail. In any case of blackmail
the blackmailer could just make the information public. What identifies
blackmail is the offer to keep information secret provided that the
victim agrees to make payments or to give the blackmailer <something> in
return. What I am not clear about is how real the <something> has to be.
If, say the demand was for something that has no possible monetary
outcome. Say the blackmailer demanded that the victim resign a voluntary
position and appoint the blackmailer to that same position. There's no
monetary gain, and there may be no gain at all other than the boosting
of the blackmailer's ego. Is that intangible gain sufficient for the
actions to be blackmail?
Morally I feel this is blackmail, but I'm trying to understand the legal
position, not an emotional response.
GB
>
> Indeed the nature of the menacing threat seems to be very broad, and
> the page referred to states that "The menaces can be express or
> implied" hence a threat of the following nature:
>
>
> "Whether or not you would like [this information being revealed to
> people who know you] is up to you.
>
> "You [did something I don't like] and I [will publish information that
> has come to my attention which I believe to be embarassing to you] if
> that is what you want. I'm sure that quite a few of [the people who
> know you] would take delight in your embarassment.
>
> "What I would prefer, is for you to [comply with a demand I made to
> you earlier that does not involve payment or loss]."
>
>
> Now, the question is, does the above amount to blackmail? On the face
> of it, to me, that is a fairly standard blackmail letter but the
> demand being made is not obviously one that leads to "gain". It is
> possible that the blackmailer may be said to have "gained" by having
> their demands agreed to, is that sufficient "gain" to establish that
> the communication is blackmail?
See Alex Heney's post
"(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."
So, you are not approaching this from the right direction ISTM. The above
demand you outlined is undoubtedly potentially blackmail. However, you can't
divorce the wording from the substance. So, is the demand reasonable, and is
the whole approach 'proper'?
There have been a couple of examples given of threats which are perfectly
proper - eg
"Suppose B is indeed selling animals for
vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly
meetings. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of course, he
can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him being lynched.
Instead, A warns B off."
I would suggest that it doesn't matter how A words this warning. It's
perfectly reasonable to demand that B doesn't attend the meetings, and the
use of menaces is justified.
GB
> GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining
>>>> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop
>>>> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still
>>>> be blackmail.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and
>>> B attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from
>>> attending. If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a
>>> company that provides animals for medical research purposes unless
>>> B promises to stop attending the same social event is that
>>> blackmail?
>>
>> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
> [snip]
>
> It's not a real situation, no. I think, and I may be wrong in which
> case please correct me, that you are taking the view that the end
> justifies the means. In this case your interest in "is this true"
> gives a feeling that you may look on the director of a company
> supplying animals for medical research in a different way to the way
> that you would look at some other person.
Not at all. What I meant is that a threat to knowingly spread untrue rumours
can never be justified. It doesn't meet the twin criteria of
"(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."
Hence, it will be blackmail.
Man at B&Q
> Man at B&Q wrote:
> >> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
>
> > Does it matter?
>
> Well, of course it matters whether A is threatening to slander B or is
> merely giving him advance warning that he'll be outed if he attends the next
> meeting.
The question was "is it true". Does it matter if the situation
described is true or merely a hypothetical illustration of a
situation?
>
>
>
> >> A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go
> >> ahead and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably
> >> preventing him attending these social events anyway.
>
> > Of course, so if he's so sure of himself, why doesn't he?
>
> >> Instead, he seems to be offering B the
> >> option of not having the revelation made.
>
> > Instead, he seems to be trying to avoid appearing like a mean spirited
> > tell tale, and any possible backlash, and is trying to get what he
> > wants by some underhand means.
>
> >> I am just surprised that offering
> >> an option in this way could be classed as blackmail
>
> > Seems quite reasonable to class it as such to me.
>
> Okay, let's give a concrete example. Suppose B is indeed selling animals for
> vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly
> meetings*. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of course, he
> can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him being lynched.
> Instead, A warns B off.
>
> So, you still think A is mean-spirited? You still think that's blackmail?
Yes, if there's a threat to do something if B doesn't comply. If A
asked B nicely not to attend then that would be different.
MBQ
Man at B&Q
Even if it contained a threat of violence?
> It's
> perfectly reasonable to demand that B doesn't attend the meetings,
Is it? I would imagine it depends on conditions of membership of the
group.
> and the
> use of menaces is justified.
Not the sort of menace you're likely to get from an Animal Rights
Activist.
MBQ
GB
>> There have been a couple of examples given of threats which are
>> perfectly proper - eg
>> "Suppose B is indeed selling animals for
>> vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly
>> meetings. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of
>> course, he can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him
>> being lynched. Instead, A warns B off."
>>
>> I would suggest that it doesn't matter how A words this warning.
>
> Even if it contained a threat of violence?
No, but what about: ' If you attend, I'll out you at the meeting, and I
can't be held responsible for the consequences.'? That's not a threat of
violence per se.
GB
> On Jan 21, 5:20 pm, "GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Man at B&Q wrote:
>>>> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
>>
>>> Does it matter?
>>
>> Well, of course it matters whether A is threatening to slander B or
>> is merely giving him advance warning that he'll be outed if he
>> attends the next meeting.
>
> The question was "is it true". Does it matter if the situation
> described is true or merely a hypothetical illustration of a
> situation?
Ah, I see the confusion.
Steve Firth
> > It's not a real situation, no. I think, and I may be wrong in which
> > case please correct me, that you are taking the view that the end
> > justifies the means. In this case your interest in "is this true"
> > gives a feeling that you may look on the director of a company
> > supplying animals for medical research in a different way to the way
> > that you would look at some other person.
>
> Not at all. What I meant is that a threat to knowingly spread untrue rumours
> can never be justified.
I think you're introducing an element that should not be introduced. The
"untrue rumours" isn't relevant to blackmail. The information may be
true, or a complete fabrication. It is irrelevant to determining if the
threat is blackmail.
> It doesn't meet the twin criteria of
> "(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."
>
> Hence, it will be blackmail.
And in this you are ignoring the element of "gain" or "loss" which is
the element about which I am unsure. If the gain or loss is not
financial and cannot easily be described in financial terms is the
threat still blackmail?
Steve Firth
> So, you are not approaching this from the right direction ISTM. The above
> demand you outlined is undoubtedly potentially blackmail. However, you can't
> divorce the wording from the substance. So, is the demand reasonable, and is
> the whole approach 'proper'?
I think you have misunderstood the circustances in which a threat may be
considered reasonable and proper.
A threat which says "Pay me the money that you owe me or I shall start
proceedings for the recovery of debt and I shall notify credit reference
agencies of your default" is not blackmail for example. Although it
contains a threat to release information to a third party unless payment
is made the demand is reasonable and the use of menaces is a proper
means of reinforcing that demand.
The situation you describe below is, IMO, not a reasonable use of
menaces.
> There have been a couple of examples given of threats which are perfectly
> proper - eg
> "Suppose B is indeed selling animals for
> vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly
> meetings. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of course, he
> can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him being lynched.
> Instead, A warns B off."
>
> I would suggest that it doesn't matter how A words this warning.
You may suggest that, I suggest that you're wrong.
> It's perfectly reasonable to demand that B doesn't attend the meetings,
I don't see that is reasonable at all. This is where I believe that you
are letting your moral compass lead you away from a dispassionate
observation of what is happening. Perhaps it would be easier if we
forget the "animal rights" aspect of the matter which I think is
obscuring the important consideration?
> and the use of menaces is justified.
It may seem to you to be reasonable, but my reading of the Theft Act and
the sites others have referenced here is that the demand is anything but
reasonable, and that the example you give is not the one that I have
referred to.
If someone is warning another "Don't attend the meeting tonight, the
matter of your selling animals for vivisection will be raised and there
may be a violent reaction to your presence at the meeting" there is no
threat, no menace and no element of gain (or loss).
If, however, someone says "Unless you pay me £3000 I shall announce that
you are a vivisectionist at the next animal rights meeting" there is
clearly a menace, a demand for payment (gain) and the demand is clearly
not reasonable.
The case I am interested in is where the "gain" is not clearly
financial, i.e. someone says "I've never liked you, I don't like your
attitude and I'm very angry at the way that you have managed to have
every point I make in committee overturned. I have evidence, (which may
or may not be true) that I believe to be true, that says that you supply
animals to a vivisection laboratory. Unless you resign and make an
undertaking never to counter my arguments again, I shall make public the
information that I hold."
Now, is that gain and the associated message blackmail or not? As stated
earlier if it's not blackmail, what is it? Clearly it is morally
reprehensible since it is an attempt to use a threat of disclosure to
gain and advantage. But is it so reprehensible that it becomes a
criminal act? Can the victim in this case go to the police with a
reasonable belief that the police will take the matter seriously and
that, if the evidence in the form of the letter is appropriate, the CPS
will prosecute?
Steve Walker
I think that it surely implies a threat. How about "I'll put posters up on
your street saying you're a paedo, and I can't be held responsible for the
consequences."
GB
GB
>
> And in this you are ignoring the element of "gain" or "loss" which is
> the element about which I am unsure. If the gain or loss is not
> financial and cannot easily be described in financial terms is the
> threat still blackmail?
So, let's start again with the question you originally meant to ask:
Can something non-monetary be gain or loss for the purposes of blackmail?
You gave the particular example of not attending a social occasion.
The website you referred to answers that question:
"With a view to make a gain or intent to cause a loss - Section 34 of the
Theft Act 1968 defines gain and loss as including only gain and loss of
money or other property. "
Indeed S34 states:
""gain" and "loss" are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in
money or other property"
Attending a social gathering would not in normal circumstances come into
that category. I think that would be the case even if there were free food
and drink laid on, but certainly not because you lose the opportunity to
buttonhole someone.
The thing I am not clear about is why there has to be an element of gain, as
that's not mentioned in S21?
Man at B&Q
So it does matter how A words his warning. Thanks for agreeing with
me.
MBQ
GB
>
> Thanks for agreeing with
> me.
I hadn't realised hpw much it mattered to you, and I'll make a point of
being as agreeable as possible.
Steve Firth
> Steve Firth wrote:
> >
> > And in this you are ignoring the element of "gain" or "loss" which is
> > the element about which I am unsure. If the gain or loss is not
> > financial and cannot easily be described in financial terms is the
> > threat still blackmail?
>
> So, let's start again with the question you originally meant to ask:
I asked the question that I meant to ask.
> Can something non-monetary be gain or loss for the purposes of blackmail?
No, that's not the question that I meant to ask. I genuinely meant to
ask "can the financial element be indirect?"
> You gave the particular example of not attending a social occasion.
Which may involve an indirect financial loss. By not attending the
social function that they normally visit someone may lose their subs or
have to pay more to attend a similar social meeting in another place, or
they may lose business as a consequence of rumour.
> The website you referred to answers that question:
I didn't refer to a website.
> "With a view to make a gain or intent to cause a loss - Section 34 of the
> Theft Act 1968 defines gain and loss as including only gain and loss of
> money or other property. "
Indeed, that's why I asked the question. But the website that you
referred to only gives one opinion. Others give different
interpretations, for example:
S. 34(2)(a) Theft Act 1968 defines 'gain' and 'loss' as including only
gain or loss of money or other property. This would exclude from the
remit of blackmail demands of a sexual nature. However, generally
property of some kind can be found to exist:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Blackmail.php
> Indeed S34 states:
> ""gain" and "loss" are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in
> money or other property"
But does not make it clear how indirect the relationship between
blackmail and money may be.
> Attending a social gathering would not in normal circumstances come into
> that category. I think that would be the case even if there were free food
> and drink laid on, but certainly not because you lose the opportunity to
> buttonhole someone.
>
> The thing I am not clear about is why there has to be an element of gain, as
> that's not mentioned in S21?
I feel that there's much that you're not clear about here. What I was
hoping for was for some case examples that would provide clear examples
of (say) a blackmail case failing because the link between gain and loss
and demand was too weak or where there was clear guidance on elements
where the gain or loss may be as a consequence of loss of credibility of
the person being blackkmailed.
GB
>
> No, that's not the question that I meant to ask. I genuinely meant to
> ask "can the financial element be indirect?"
Okay, but it got side-tracked in other directions.
>
>> "With a view to make a gain or intent to cause a loss - Section 34
>> of the Theft Act 1968 defines gain and loss as including only gain
>> and loss of money or other property. "
>
> Indeed, that's why I asked the question. But the website that you
> referred to only gives one opinion. Others give different
> interpretations, for example:
>
> S. 34(2)(a) Theft Act 1968 defines 'gain' and 'loss' as including only
> gain or loss of money or other property. This would exclude from the
> remit of blackmail demands of a sexual nature. However, generally
> property of some kind can be found to exist:
This really requires a detailed knowledge of the case law. I'm not terribly
surprised that you haven't had much of n answer to your question here or by
trawling the internet. I guess if it matters you could get counsel's
opinion.
The reality of the situation is that you either are looking at a private
prosecution or you'll have to interest the Police. Frankly, if you turn up
at the front desk of the local Police station with this** I can't see you
getting anywhere, but good luck.
** being excluded from a social event