Treacy v DPP; R v Treacy

November 15. LORD REID. My Lords, I shall not set out the facts of this case. The question in issue can be simply stated. The offence charged was the blackmailing offence of making an unwarranted demand with menaces. Is a person guilty of that offence if in England he writes and posts a letter making such a demand of a person who is abroad?

I think that the best way to approach this case is to consider first the converse case where the blackmailer goes abroad and writes and posts there his letter to his intended victim in England. Can he on his return to England be convicted of this offence? I cannot believe that it would be a good defence that all the physical acts which he did in order to make his demand were carried out by him abroad and that therefore the offence was committed abroad. Whether one takes into account the views of the man in the street or simply construes the words of the section, section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, it seems to me to be quite plain that the blackmailer made his demand in England when the intended victim received his letter. Any other decision would be, as has been said, a “blackmailer's charter.”

First, I think that we should see what is meant by making a demand with menaces. Rather than argue about words I shall take a few examples. Suppose the blackmailer uses the telephone and says: “You know who is speaking. Pay up or I shall kill your brother John.” If the victim receives the message he will understand it and clearly there is a demand with menaces. But suppose the blackmailer gets the wrong number. Sometimes an operator taking a call does not listen immediately and no one may hear these words. Or the call may be taken by a complete stranger. He does not know who the caller is or what is demanded, and he is not menaced — he has no brother John. It seems to me very far-fetched to say that the blackmailer has made a demand with menaces. He has attempted to do so but his attempt has miscarried.

Then suppose the blackmailer sends an emissary to make an oral demand. Surely no demand is made until the emissary delivers the message. Can it make any difference that the emissary carries a paper with the words written on it? Can it make any difference that the paper is enclosed in an envelope? Can it make any difference that the emissary does not know what is enclosed in the envelope? Can it make any difference whether the message is to be delivered in this country or abroad? I think not.

But it is said to make a difference whether or not the blackmailer is able to get in touch with the emissary before the message is delivered and countermand its delivery. I can see no reason for that. In either case the blackmailer has done all the physical acts he can to put in train a series of events which if not interrupted will result in the demand being made. They may be interrupted by the emissary being taken ill or being unable to find the victim or by the blackmailer having second thoughts and being able to countermand delivery. The result is the same in each case. The blackmailer attempted to make the demand when he dispatched the emissary, but the demand was never made.

The Post Office is no more than an emissary. The letter may miscarry or the addressee may have left his old address. The letter may or may not be returned by the Post Office to the sender.

Some difficulty has been introduced into this matter by what was said in Reg. v. Moran (1952) 36 Cr.App.R. 10 when it was said that there could not be an attempt to make a demand. There may have been no room in that case for finding an attempt. But if it was intended to say that there can never be an attempt to make a demand with menaces I think that that was clearly wrong.

So in this case I have no doubt that a demand with menaces was made by the accused when the victim received the letter in Germany, but no demand was made in England.

How, then, was he guilty of an offence in this country? He did not make two demands — one when he posted the letter and a second when it was delivered. He did nothing after posting the letter which could amount to a second demand. But it was argued that he made a continuing demand which began when he posted the letter and ended when it was received. Continuing offences are well known in the law. They are generally offences of omission. The accused is guilty of the full offence at the beginning and he continues to be guilty for every moment during which the...