Pogmore, R. v (Rev 1)

For blackmail, Criminal Justice Act 1993 sections 2 and 4 must be read together. A demand with menaces communicated from abroad to a recipient in England and Wales founds jurisdiction under section 4(b)(ii), although a blackmail demand may be made without communication. Blackmail is a conduct offence. Its actus reus is a demand with menaces, which cannot be divided into separate jurisdictional events. Jurisdiction does not arise merely because a result or consequence is felt in England and Wales.

The respondent was tried at Bristol Crown Court on two counts of blackmail contrary to section 21(1) of the Theft Act 1968. The prosecution alleged that, while in Nepal, he sent emails containing demands with menaces to directors of an English company.

At the close of the prosecution case, the judge held that the court lacked jurisdiction because the prosecution could not prove that the emails had been sent within England and Wales. The prosecution appealed under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, having given the required acquittal undertaking.

The central issue was whether English courts have jurisdiction over blackmail where a defendant abroad sends a demand with menaces by email to persons in England and Wales.

1. Appeal allowed. The judge's ruling on jurisdiction was wrong in law. The court reversed it and ordered a fresh trial at Bristol Crown Court.
2. Blackmail under section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 is a conduct offence. The relevant actus reus is a demand with menaces. The demand and menaces are not severable, and jurisdiction cannot be based simply on the place where a consequence or result of the blackmail is felt.
3. Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 applies to blackmail as a Group A offence. The statutory question is whether a relevant event occurred in England and Wales. Sections 2 and 4 must be construed together.
4. Section 4(b) treats a demand as communicated in England and Wales where it is sent either from England and Wales abroad or from abroad to England and Wales. In the latter situation, section 4(b)(ii) supplies territorial jurisdiction for blackmail. That conclusion is not defeated by the fact that a demand can be made without being received.
5. The court interpreted section 4 as Parliament's resolution of the competing jurisdictional views considered in Treacy v DPP [1971] AC 537. Parliament intended jurisdiction in both forms of cross-border communication specified in section 4(b). The clear statutory purpose prevailed while respecting the principle that penal legislation is strictly construed.
6. Pursuant to section 61(4)(b) and (8) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the ruling was reversed and a fresh trial ordered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The prosecution appeal was allowed. The jurisdiction ruling was reversed and a fresh trial ordered: [2017] EWCA Crim 925.
• Crown Court at Bristol — At the close of the prosecution case, HHJ Longman ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to try the two blackmail counts. The jury was discharged after the prosecution gave notice of its proposed appeal under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.