|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Ashiq, R v  EWCA Crim 1617 (30 July 2015)
Cite as:  EWCA Crim 1617
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PEGDEN QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division
|R E G I N A|
|- v -|
|MAJID KHAN ASHIQ|
Wordwave International Ltd trading as DTI
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Telephone No: 020 7404 1400; Fax No 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr S Wilshire appeared on behalf of the Crown
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday 30th July 2015
LADY JUSTICE SHARP:
"1. I do not consider that the judge's direction relating to executory intention was inadequate but the [appellant] can argue that the direction relating to 'unwarranted' was misleading and did not adequately reflect the terms of section 21(1) of the Theft Act nor properly reflect the burden of proof."
In our view, leave to appeal has therefore been granted on ground 3 alone, though Miss Levitt expresses her intention to renew her application on all grounds refused.
"MALE CALLER: … my pal just called you, yeah? … I think you just, I think we're – everyone's jumping up and down brother. There's no problem whatsoever, yeah, I think you've been talking to some of my friends over there who have been trying to get you to meet us, yeah.
MALE CALLER: Has anyone from Luton tried to get in touch with you – some of our friends?
MR MALIK: Well, not really, Lex, Lex, not really, Lex just rang me telling me that he's threatening me and he's gonna bring people down and et cetera, et cetera. So I think that's quite childish. … No, I'm sorry, well no, but I'd rather have Lex back on the phone again and sort of let's discuss it again because I'm not really happy the way that he just threatened me. It's not my fault he brought down cash and I did the right thing by going, going to the bank with the money which anybody else would and of course his, and he told me afterwards that yeah he's got nothing to hide et cetera, et cetera, but I don't understand now why he's ringing me up trying to threaten me, trying to get my car off of me for free. I'm not gonna give my car for free.
MALE CALLER: … police, that's entirely up to you, but you know what, it's not a nice thing when you say 'Oh, we're going to police' – you know what I mean.
MR MALIK: What do you mean, it's not a nice thing?
MALE CALLER: We don't have anything to do with snitches, brother, d'yah understand, yeah?
MALE CALLER: I've got a bro, I've got family in Watford, yeah. I've not threatened you, I've not sent nobody to see you yet.
MR MALIK: See me yet?
MALE CALLER: See you yet.
MR MALIK: Okay, which means …
MALE CALLER: I'm not threatening you brother, I'm not threatening you. I'm giving you a promise. Okay. Let's just leave it at that. You get whoever you want from London. You do whatever you have to do, brother, 'cos we're gonna come to get whatever we have to get. Hope you are recording now, because I've been, I've tried …
ANOTHER MALE VOICE: Ah, man, you didn't have to record that, man."
"… the law provides that even if you have reasonable grounds for making a demand you have to be able to persuade people that the use of menaces is a proper method of reinforcing that demand. So even … if the people in this case were entitled to expect money or a car from [the complainant], they could only justify that if they could persuade you that the demand was one which was proper to enforce with menaces."
"A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief –
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
"If it was necessary to give a direction on this aspect of the case at all (and in the absence of any evidence by the defendants as to their belief we cannot think that there was in reality any live issue concerning it) the jury should have been directed that the demand with menaces was not to be regarded as unwarranted unless the Crown satisfied them in respect of each defendant that the defendant did not make the demand with menaces in the genuine belief both – (a) that he had had reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces was in the circumstances a proper (meaning for present purposes a lawful, and not a criminal) means of reinforcing the demand."