Blackmail part 1
Most people have heard of blackmail and know roughly that it consists in extorting money from people. However the legal definition is a little more complicated than that.
Blackmail has been in the news recently. Former Manchester City trainee Ashley Timms was jailed for blackmailing someone described as a "top Premier League footballer and international player " in relation to a sex video in respect of which he demanded £15,000 from the footballer. Needless to say the footballer cannot be named for legal reasons. The reason for that is obvious. It would be very difficult to conduct any blackmail trial if the recipient of the threat would have his or her name plastered all over the newspapers as a result of any prosecution. Therefore in blackmail cases the court will order the identity to be kept secret. Any other course would make it practically impossible to pursue blackmail, and indeed would add to the armoury of the blackmailer. "If you go to the police and this ever gets to court your name and what happened will be all over the newspapers" would be the all too ready threat. That is why when you read about blackmail cases although you might be able to gather something about the victim (here that he must have been a colleague of the blackmailer at some stage because of the circumstances in which the video was taken) there will be no specific identification.
The video was taken at the footballer's home and showed him having sex with a 19-year-old woman. The hearing took place at Manchester Crown Court before the recorder of Manchester, His Honour Judge Andrew Gilbart QC. The court was informed that amongst footballers it was common for them to video each other having sex with teenage admirers. The defendant had taken this video when he was a friend of the footballer and essentially, as a player, "part of the gang". As his career went on the slide he decided to get some money out of it by threatening to in some way release the video unless he was paid the money. This involved him contacting the player with a sudden demand which, as with any such case, must have been somewhat frightening and worrying. The court was told that the player's form had been affected, (one presumes on the football field rather than in videos) which is unsurprising in the circumstances.
Judge Gilbart, jailing the defendant for 20 months stated "Blackmail always calls for a custodial sentence.". The judge also commented on the degree of press hypocrisy relating to sexual matters. The judge effectively indicated that many newspapers liked to go into details about sex under the guise of being morally outraged about the goings-on, whereas in fact what they were pandering to was the desire of readers to find out the sexual shenanigans of public figures or others who might be of interest. As well as unsurprisingly viewing this as hypocritical, it also of course creates a climate in which people might be minded to blackmail others (although of course sometimes, subject to any privacy action to prevent them, a kiss and tell story to the newspapers might be more lucrative).
Next week we shall look at the legal elements of the offence.