Murphy [2019] EWCA Crim 438

The appellant appealed against 3 years imprisonment imposed for blackmail. He pleaded guilty to blackmailing an electrician who had been called to a house where he found a cannabis farm which he reported to the police. The appellant subsequently called him demanding his ‘gear’ or ‘crop’ back threatening to chop him and his wife up if he did not comply. He said that he was in a vehicle that the complainant had seen at various locations. The complainant referred to the significant impact of the incident and the fear caused.

The judge used a starting point of 4 years and this was the issue taken on appeal. There is no sentencing guideline for blackmail and the authorities cited fell between robbery and simple theft. Relevant factors include the nature of the demand, the victim’s ability to meet the demand, nature of the threat, the anguish and fear felt and the extent to which that anguish and fear was intended.

The guideline with greater relevance to this case is that on threats to kill but it is not a persuasive analogy given the difference in maximumsentence. This was a particularly nasty case although the demand and threats were made in one call, were not face to face and it was not long until the appellant was arrested. On the other hand, the complainant was not to know if the appellant was acting alone or in a group who may wish to take reprisals for the arrest and the incident had a considerable effect on the complainant. This was not just a threat to kill there was a demand to supress crime since the appellant’s case was that he had not known about the involvement of the police.

A starting point of 4 years was not too long, the appeal was dismissed.