Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Blackmail and the Guardian

The Guardian has asked a valid question. Should an injunction they have picked out and highlighted on their website have been taken out? It involves potential blackmail.


Take a look.

We are not lawyers but the Theft Act 1968 (s21) says this:


(1)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; and for 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.

(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

If someone blackmails you, you call 999. It is a criminal offence. Seeking an injunction appears wrong.

We know lots of lawyers read this blog (Schillings especially!) so would welcome a response ...


  1. "If someone blackmails you, you call 999."
    ... and then the press get wind of it, and the blackmail is successful even if no money changes hands. Yeah, good going.

  2. Oh just fuck off with your moralising Everything you say seems to be all about your self-love and superiority.