For the offence against Tom, Dave could be charged with blackmail (s.21 Theft act 1968). The actus reus of blackmail is ‘a demand that is unwarranted and made with menaces’. The demand can take any form and can be suggested or implied (Collister and Warhurst) and is complete as soon as it is made, the victim doesn’t have to receive it (Treacy v DPP). Here, there was an express demand for a repayment of £1000 from Tom to Dave. The demand must also be unwarranted, however it will be found not to be unwarranted if the defendant shows that he believed that he had reasonable grounds (a good reason) for making the demand and that the use of menaces was a proper means of reinforcing the demand (his threat was proportionate to the demand). Here, Dave did have reasonable grounds as his watch was faulty, however, the prosecution would argue that beating someone up is not a proper way to reinforce the demand. In Harvey a man threatened to rape and murder a cannabis dealer’s family after the dealer said he couldn’t get his money back, it was held that threats to commit serious criminal offences could never amount to being ‘proper’. So in this instance, Dave did not use menaces that were of proper means and therefore the demands were unwarranted. …show more content…
The loss/gain doesn’t have to be permanent and alike theft, includes property (Real, personal, money etc.). Here, there was a clear view to gain and loss as Dave would receive £1000 and Tom would lose