⇒ The offence is defined in section 21 of the Theft Act 1968.

⇒ The actus reus is:

1. the defendant makes an unwarranted demand;
2. with menaces.

⇒ The mens rea is:

1. the defendant must act with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another;

(2) the defendant either:

1. does not believe that he has reasonable grounds for make the demands; or
2. does not believe that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

⇒ The demand can be oral, written, or implied (R v Collister and Warhurst (1955)).

⇒ The word 'demand' is to be given its ordinary meaning. All that is necessary is that the demand is issued. There is no need for the victim to hear or receive the demand.

⇒ The demand must involve a financial gain to the defendant or a third party, or a financial loss to the victim.

⇒ This is clarified in section 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968: ... 'gain' and 'loss' are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in money or other property, but as extending to any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent; and—

1. 'gain' includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one has not; and
2. 'loss' includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has.

⇒ So a demand that the victim removes his or her clothes in public may involve a loss of dignity, but it cannot form the basis of a blackmail charge as there is no monetary loss. See, for example, the case of R v Bevans (1988).

⇒ The demand must be made with menaces.

⇒ The Court of Appeal in R v Lawrence and Pomroy (1973) suggested that a jury need only be told that 'menace' is to have its normal meaning and the judge need not explain the term further.

• The jury is likely to decide that the menace will involve a threat of 'any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the person addressed' (Lord Wright in Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937]).

⇒ The threat can be that something unpleasant will occur to the victim or a third party.

⇒ Seller LJ in R v Clear [1968] held that to amount to menaces the threats must be 'of such a nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so a to accede unwillingly to the demand'.

• See the case of R v Lambert [2009].

⇒ First, the jury must decide whether or not they think the demand is unwarranted. It may be that the demand is perfectly reasonaly.

⇒ However, even if the jury think it unwarranted they must still go on to consider section 21 of the Theft Act 1968. Section 21(1) explains that the defendant's demand will be unwarranted unless it is made in the belief:

1. that there are reaosnable grounds for making it; and
2. that the use of the menaces is a proper means of enforcing the demand.

⇒ If the defendant has the two beliefs mentioned the defendant cannot be guilty of blackmail because the demand will not be unwarranted.

• However, this is subject to an important caveat → if the defendant is aware that he or she is threatening to commit a crime, he or she cannot claim that the demand is reasonable (R v Harvery, Ulyett, and Plummer (1981)).