"Although cost was an important factor, our relationship with ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø, their responsiveness, flexibility, and the integration available with other products were key factors."
Irwin Mitchell
Access all documents on Blackmail
Blackmail is any unwarranted demand with menaces.
A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; for this purpose a demand is unwarranted unless the maker has reasonable grounds for making it and the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, as is whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand: Theft Act 1968, s 21.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
The offenceA person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for themselves or another or with intent to cause loss to another, they make any unwarranted demand with menaces. A demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief that:•they have reasonable grounds for making the demand, and•the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demandBlackmail is an indictable-only offence that can only be tried in the Crown Court.JurisdictionOne of the constituent elements of the offence must occur in England and Wales. A person will be guilty of the offence of blackmail whether or not they were in England and Wales at any material time and whether or not they are a British citizen.Jurisdiction is established if the communication of a demand were sent either: •from a place in England and Wales to a place elsewhere, or•from a place elsewhere to a place in England and WalesIn R v Pogmore, the Court of Appeal held that the...
Economic tort of unlawful interference As set out in The economic torts—overview, the law makes provision to protect a person’s trade or business from acts which are considered to be unacceptable. For guidance on claims for: • procuring a breach of contract, see Practice Note: The tort of procuring a breach of contract • intentional violation of rights in a judgment debt, see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt) • conspiracy (both by lawful and unlawful means), see Practice Note: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) • economic duress, see Practice Note: Economic duress—undue influence—tort of intimidation • intentional violation with the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt, see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt) Civil claims involving fraud and dishonesty often rely on pleading one or more of the economic torts, on which see Practice Note: Civil fraud—causes of action (heads of claim). What is the tort of unlawful interference? Causing loss by unlawful means exists where the defendant interferes with...
Discover our 27 Practice Notes on Blackmail
Can admissions contained in 'without prejudice' documentation in children matters be admissible ie where correspondence is marked 'without prejudice' will that have an absolute effect in children cases? without prejudice communications Without prejudice immunity is based on the public policy that parties should be encouraged to settle litigation, or disputes which may lead to litigation. It is never absolute and the case of Unilever PLC v The Proctor & Gamble Company sets out some of the exceptions to immunity which include: • where there is an issue over whether the communication resulted in a concluded agreement • where a party seeks to set aside an agreement concluded in without prejudice communications on the grounds of misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence • where excluding the evidence would mask perjury, blackmail, threat or other unambiguous impropriety, and • where the communication or document constitutes evidence of delay or acquiescence Not everything termed without prejudice is necessarily so. The communication or document must contain or amount to a genuine...
If, during without prejudice discussions regarding possible termination of the employee's employment, the employee indicates that, unless the employer increases its settlement offer, they will (in breach of their employment contract) reveal commercially sensitive information to competitors, does that amount to blackmail? Consideration should be given to: • the definition of blackmail • the without prejudice rule Blackmail A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for themselves or another or with intent to cause loss to another, they make any unwarranted demand with menaces. A demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief that: • they have reasonable grounds for making the demand, and • the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand Menaces are serious or significant threats; this includes threats of violence or anything detrimental or unpleasant. It may also include a warning that in certain events such action is intended. To constitute ‘menaces’ the threats or conduct of the...
See the 4 Q&As about Blackmail
This week's edition of Corporate Crime weekly highlights includes analysis of the Supreme Court decision on the double criminality rule in the Extradition Act 2003, of the circumstances surrounding the halting of the new Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline, of divergent approaches to Russia sanctions enforcement emerging from the UK, US and EU, and of the key questions arising from the Libor conviction cases currently awaiting judgment in the Supreme Court. Also included is news of the largest sanctions package being implemented against Russian shadow fleet tankers, of HMCTS’s strategy for remote participation in court proceedings, of the EA securing two confiscation orders in relation to illegal waste offences, and of a pub chain being fined for food safety breaches following a child's severe allergic reaction. All this, and more, in this week’s Corporate Crime highlights.
This week's edition of Corporate Crime weekly highlights includes analysis of the final report from part one of the Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences, of a recent Supreme Court case which found that the interpretation of defence statements in criminal cases depends on context, of the creation of an International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce and of what to expect from the CMA with its new powers to enforce consumer protection law under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024. Also included is news of the publication of the terms of reference for part two of the Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences, of new guidance from the SFO on corporate self-reporting and DPAs, of new penalties targeting online platforms that fail to remove knife-related content and of new sentencing provisions for water company executives under the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. All this, and more, in this week’s Corporate Crime highlights.
Read the latest 6 News articles on Blackmail
**Trials are provided to all ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234