Why is a person's belief an excuse for blackmail-like behaviour [UK Theft Act 1968]

[erichafabee]

The UK Theft Act 1968 states that a person is not guilty of blackmail (aka "demanding money with menaces") if they do so:

"in the belief that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand"

On the face of it this seems bonkers! It means that however unreasonable the grounds for blackmaiil might be judged by anyone or everyone else, the perpetrator can not be prosecuted and indeed can carry on with, and repeat the offensive behaviour on a large scale - so long as they remain deluded with regards to their reasonableness!

[des8]

You have taken that phrase out of context and omitted the essential " and .. that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
It is a subjective test of what the accused believes to be reasonable and proper. He could not argue that he believed the threat to be proper if he knows that, if carried out, it would amount to a criminal offence.

That is grounds for defence, it does not prevent a prosecution.
Having been prosecuted once, a perpetrator could not rely again on a defence of reasonable belief as he would know.
So no excuse to repeat the action

[erichafabee]

Thankyou for your reply.

The Act uses the term "belief" not "knowledge". There are many people who, I beleive quite genuinely continue to "beleive" things that they have previously been told are fictional, regardless of the authority of the person telling them so.

The essence of my question is why a person's "beleif" is even included in this Act - why is it not just phrased as "he has reasonable grounds for making the demand and ... the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand"?

(There is a concrete example behind my questions where the "person" is a corporation - so the practical challenge in judging what it genuinely "believes" could be quite extrordinarily difficult! - but that's for another question

[des8]

So why not tell us what the problem is rather than asking exam type questions?

Are you considering a private prosecution of a corporation on a charge of blackmail? Intriguing!

[erichafabee]

Until I have answers to my "exam like" questions I wont know if there is an problem. Are you struggling with this exam?

No I am not considering a private prosecution for blackmail. Blackmail is a criminal charge. What exactly is your qualification?

[erichafabee]

(I hope you see I am teasing - not trying to be rude - email doesnt always convey nuances )

[erichafabee]

If anyone can explain the rationale for considering the perpetrator's "beliefs" in this Act please go ahead...

[des8]

I never think peeps are rude, but questions are often posed by students looking for assistance, so if clarification about the meaning of a statute is posed without a context one might tend to draw certain (incorrect) conclusions.

You ask about blackmail as in the Theft Act, and then refer to a corporation.
Now a corporation has separate legal personality in the sense that it is separate and distinct from its shareholders, directors and officers, but I don't believe it could be classed as a person in relation to the Theft Act
I asked if you were actually contemplating a private prosecution against a corporation, 'cos I couldn't see where you were going with this.
No context makes it difficult to comment

Qualifications? what were expecting? we do have solicitors popping in occasionally but I have no legal qualifications tho' I have in the distant past studied certain aspects of law, both common law and the Napoleonic code.

[erichafabee]

Your answer raises some more questions. I'll raise them in a separate thread to keep this one focused on my original question which I hope is now clearer:


What is the rationale for considering the perpetrator's "beliefs" when determining guilt of blackmail in the UK Theft Act 1968?

[des8]

Check out "mens rea"