Facts: The defendant demanded that a doctor give him some morphine, threatening to shoot him if he did not.

Held: The defendant could be convicted of blackmail because the morphine was of some monetary value.

Facts: In the case, the defendant broke a shop window and stick the top half of his body through it while investigating the inside of the shop.

Held: This as an 'effective entry' so the offence of burglary was made out.

Facts: The defendant was charged with burglary. He had climbed a ladder to an open window where a young woman was sleeping naked in her bed. He descended the ladder and stripped down to his socks then climbed up again. The woman awoke and saw him at the window. She thought it was her boyfriend so invited him in. It was not clear, and neither party could recall whether he was inside or outside the window when she invited him in. They proceeded to have sexual intercourse. She then realised it was not her boyfriend and screamed for him to get off. He ran off. The following day he was questioned by the police and charged with burglary under s.9(1)(a) on the grounds that he entered as a trespasser with the intent to commit rape. (He could not be charged with rape as the woman had consented to sexual intercourse). The jury convicted him at first instance. The defendant appealed on the grounds of a misdirection as the jury had not been asked to consider if he was a trespasser at the time of entry.

Held: His conviction was quashed (i.e. found not guilty). It was held that there must be an effective and substantial entry with knowledge or being reckless as to being a trespasser. Consent of the home owner (the girl's parents) was not required; it was sufficient that the girl had invited him in.

Facts: The two defendants were police officers. They intimated to the complainant that he would be prosecuted for an offence. They arranged to meet him the next day and told him the report of the offence would not occur unless he failed to turn up for the meeting. At the meeting one of the officers asked the complainant if he had anything for him. The complainant handed over £5. The defendants were convicted of blackmail and appealed contending they did not make any demand.

Held: The convictions were upheld. The demand need not be express but can be implied from conduct and circumstances.

Facts: The two appellants went to the home of one of their parents and stole two television sets. The father gave evidence stating that his son had permission to be in his house.

Held: The appellants had exceeded their permission by stealing and were thus trespassers.

Facts: The defendant was owed money by Aaron. He phoned up Aaron's grandmother and pretended to be Aaron. Posing as Aaron, he claimed that he had been tied up and that his captors were demanding £5,000. He was convicted of blackmail and appealed contending that since in the making of the call he had not made any threat towards Aaron (as he was posing as the victim of threats) neither was it in his power to carry out any such threat.

Held: His conviction for blackmail was upheld. There is no requirement that the person making the demand is to be the one who carries out any of the threatened action or if the demander is in a position to carry out the threatened action.

Facts: he defendant was found wedged in the kitchen window of the home belonging to an elderly man. His head and right arm were inside the property but the rest of his body was outside. The fire brigade had to be called to remove him. He was convicted of burglary and appealed on the grounds that there had been no effective entry.

Held: His conviction was upheld.