Rix, R v

The seriousness of blackmail depends substantially on its particular circumstances. Deliberate targeting of a person known to be highly vulnerable, coupled with threats apt to cause severe and foreseeable psychological harm, may make the offence especially grave. Related dishonest offending which materially destabilises the victim may properly aggravate the blackmail sentence.

On a sentence appeal, a stern sentence will stand unless it is manifestly excessive, after allowing for mitigation, guilty pleas, remorse, personal circumstances and the totality of the offending.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Norwich Crown Court to burglary, obtaining property by deception and blackmail. He received concurrent sentences of four years, 12 months and six years respectively, producing a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment.

He had burgled the flat of a neighbour with schizophrenia, used stolen financial information to obtain property, and sent threatening demands for money. The threats proposed to tell neighbours a baseless and highly damaging allegation about the complainant. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after the Single Judge had refused it. The issue was whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The total sentence of six years’ imprisonment, though stern, was not manifestly excessive.
2. The court accepted that the applicant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, made admissions, showed remorse, had remained free of offending for about 12 years, had suffered severe personal loss, and had made constructive efforts while on remand.
3. Those mitigating matters did not outweigh the gravity of the offending. The applicant deliberately targeted a highly vulnerable neighbour. The burglary and use of the complainant’s financial information seriously destabilised him and were properly treated as aggravating features of the blackmail.
4. Applying the observation in R v Davis [2004] 1 Cr App R(S) 31 that blackmail varies greatly in gravity according to its circumstances, the court held this to be a particularly serious example. The threat to publicise a baseless allegation had traumatic and readily foreseeable consequences for the complainant’s confidence and ability to cope with life.
5. Having regard to the seriousness and totality of the three offences, the sentencing judge’s six-year concurrent sentence was within the proper sentencing range.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the Single Judge. The renewed application was refused.
• Norwich Crown Court: on 6 February 2004, the applicant pleaded guilty to burglary, obtaining property by deception and blackmail. He received concurrent sentences producing a total of six years’ imprisonment.