Key Facts
- •Jennifer Mbazira (appellant) was convicted of blackmailing LTN, a retired businessman, after a retrial.
- •The blackmail involved a series of communications demanding increasing sums of money, threatening to reveal details of their past sexual relationship.
- •Mbazira claimed the demands were to enforce a verbal contract for a business venture, but the jury rejected this.
- •LTN was significantly distressed by the blackmail, fearing the impact on his family, especially his children.
- •Mbazira represented herself at trial and appealed against conviction and sentence.
Legal Principles
Blackmail requires proof of demands with menaces, and the absence of reasonable grounds for making such demands.
Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968
Sentencing for blackmail considers the unlawful demand, sums claimed, accompanying measures, harm caused, and duration of the offense.
Attorney General's Reference No 84 of 2015 [2015] EWCA Crim 2314
In determining sentence, courts should consider relevant case law, including R v Hadju, R v O'Sullivan, and R v Burgan.
Attorney General's Reference No 84 of 2015
Section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 applies to protect the victim's identity
Section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Outcomes
Application for an extension of time to appeal conviction refused.
While the delay was partly due to the appellant being a litigant in person and various difficulties, no arguable grounds for appeal against conviction were identified.
Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
The court found no arguable grounds of appeal based on the appellant's complaints regarding representation, indictment, judge's rulings, perjury, cross-examination, and summing up.
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
The court upheld the three-year six-month sentence, finding the judge's starting point of four years appropriate given the nature and impact of the blackmail, and the reduction for mitigation sufficient.