The third element that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt, is that, at the time when made the demand on, did so with the intention to steal the property mentioned in the indictment. But if you are so satisfied, then you must consider the third element. If you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the demand, which you have found to have been made by, was in fact accompanied by in the way in which I have explained to you, then that is the end of the matter and is “not guilty”. Of a person of ordinary firmness and courage, which may or may not have been the reaction of. That is what I meant by saying that the matter is to be determined objectively, by your assessment of the reaction This is the test to apply, rather than whether was or would have likely to have been influenced by it to act in a way contrary to wishes. This is to be determined objectively, that is to say, you as the jury have to decide whether a person of ordinary firmnessĪnd courage would have regarded what as, and would have likely to have been influenced by it so as to act in a manner contrary to own wishes. When you have decided what has been proved to have said or done, then you must ask yourselves whether these words and/or actions amounted to. The Crown has to prove what actually said or did. What does the Crown allege here was the which was making against … ? The second element to be proved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt is that the demand was accompanied by.
But if you are so satisfied, then you go on to consider the second element. If you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a demand was made, then that is the end of the matter. On the other hand, denies that any such demand was made, whether in express words or by inference. Here the Crown alleges that, although did not make the demand in so many words, it was a clear inference from what was to that was demanding that should do what was told. Thus, the demand, says the Crown, was made in so many words and was put to directly. In the present case, the Crown alleges that made demand of by …. The first element to be proved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt is that made a demand on for the property which is set out in the indictment.Ī demand may be made in express terms, or it may be in terms which imply to the alleged victim that a demand is being made. Give way to the threat or the force, nor should actually hand the property over to the person making the demand for it.
It is important to bear in mind that it is not necessary that the alleged victim of extortion or blackmail should actually Property in the possession of or under the control of that person, and that demand is accompanied by threat or force. The offence of extortion or blackmail is committed when one person dishonestly makes a demand on another person for specified Is charged with an offence which lawyers generally refer to as “extortion”, but which most non-lawyers would term “blackmail”