Treacy v DPP; R v Treacy

Mr. Justice Stephenson will give the Judgment of the Court.

On the 4th December, 1969 the Appellant pleaded not guilty at the Central Criminal Court to blackmail. The charge was that on the 1st July, 1969 within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court with a view to gain for himself, he made an unwarranted demand of the sum of £175 from Mrs. X with menaces, contrary to Section 21 of the Theft Act, 1968.

On the third day of his trial his counsel submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case because the offence was committed outside England. The learned Judge rejected that submission and the trial went on.

On the fifth day of the trial the Appellant changed his plea to guilty but preserved his objection that his offence was committed outside the jurisdiction of the Court. He was sentenced to 3½ years' imprisonment.

He appeals to this Court by leave against that conviction and sentence.

The circumstances of the offence charged were that on the 1st July, 1969 the Appellant posted in the Isle of Wight a letter written by him and addressed to Mrs. X in Frankfurt, Germany. The letter read: "Dear Mrs. X, This is a note asking you for the loan of one hundred and seventy five pounds (£175) in return for keeping my mouth shut about you and Kane. If the money does not arrive by the 10th July I will send the photos of you and Kane to your husband Rod at Liverpool. I just want one payment of £175 in an ordinary letter sent to John Jones, c/O 101 Star Street, Paddington, London, W.2. Remember 10th July Deadline".

Mrs. X received the letter in Germany, and, through a friend, the Police in England were informed. The address mentioned in the letter was an accommodation address at a tobacconist's shop, and when the Appellant came to collect his mail there, the Police arrested him. The Appellant maintained that Mrs. X, who had been connected with a company which had employed him as 'a book salesman, owed him money which he was desperate to obtain, but there was no evidence supporting his claim.

On the appeal against conviction the question for this Court is whether the Court of trial had jurisdiction to try the offence, as the Judge held, or whether it was committed outside the jurisdiction, namely in Germany, as Counsel for the Appellant has submitted both to the Trial Judge and to this Court.

Section 21 sub-section (1) of the Theft Act 1968 reads as follows: "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".

The Appellant admitted that he made a demand which was unwarranted with menaces and with a view to gain for himself and his appeal against conviction therefore turns upon the true answer to the question "where did he make his demand?".

The Prosecution alleged that he made it in England, namely in the Isle of Wight, when he posted the letter there on 1st July, 1969.

The Defence contend that he made it in Germany, namely in Frankfurt, when Mrs. X received it there, presumably a day or two later. Mr. Graham for the Appellant relies, first, on the general rule that English criminal law is applied on the territorial principle and no conduct constitutes an offence unless it occurs in the territory of England and Wales. Second, he says that the place where a crime is committed is determined by deciding where the last constituent element of the offence occurred. Third, he submits that the last constituent element in the offence created by Section 21 of the Act - or the gist of the offence - is the communication of the demand to the victim.

The general rule needs no authority and it appears that the present weight of English authority generally supports his second proposition: see The Law Commission Published Working Paper No. 29, Second Programme Item XVIII, Codification of the Criminal Law, Subject 3; Territorial and Extraterritorial Extent of the Criminal Law, 12th May, 1970 paragraph 86. In an article in (1965) 81 Law Quarterly Review, page 518 on Venue and the Ambit of the Criminal Law Professor Glanville Williams has given reasons for deploring what he calls "the terminatory theory of jurisdiction" and preferring "the initiatory theory", that the crime is committed where the offender is; and the Law Commission has put forward provisional proposals in paragraph 91 of the same paper that "it should be enacted that where any act or omission or any event, constituting an element of an offence, occurs in England or Wales that offence shall be deemed to have been committed in England or Wales even if other elements of the offence take place outside England or Wales".

Even if this Court is not bound to go with the current of existing authority against the initiatory theory, we are willing to assume for the purpose of this appeal that the last constituent element does determine the place where the offence is committed.

Where then is the offence of making a demand completed? Where the person to whom it is addressed is? and if so, when effectively communicated to the victim (like an offer) or at some earlier stage? Or where the demander is? and if so, when first formulated or expressed by him or at some later stage? The answer depends on the natural and ordinary meaning of "makes a demand"; and in our judgment a person may make a demand from another without communicating it to that other. He makes a demand contrary to the section when he utters threatening words (or makes threatening gestures) addressed to another person with the necessary intent or object. When the demand is by letter he makes it, unless there are exceptional circumstances, when he posts the letter.

When the demand is made by word of mouth it is usually made at one time and place. If the intended victim is too deaf to hear it or unable to understand it, it is none the less made, Or a demand may be made orally over the telephone. In that case it is made and received simultaneously and it may be right to regard it as made at one time but. in two places, as Counsel for the Crown suggested. When the demand is made in writing, as in this case, it will usually be made at one time and place and received at another time and place. If the intended victim is blind or illiterate, the...