Digital Blackmail Landmark Cases
๐ What is Digital Blackmail?
Digital blackmail is a modern form of extortion, where offenders use electronic means to threaten victims โ usually demanding money, images, or other concessions in exchange for not releasing damaging content or information.
Under Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, blackmail involves:
A demand, and
A threat,
Made with a view to gain or intent to cause loss, and
In a way that is unwarranted.
Digital blackmail brings this into the online space, including social media, emails, or encrypted platforms.
โ๏ธ Landmark & Illustrative Cases of Digital Blackmail
1. R v. Hussain (2018) โ Sextortion via Social Media
Facts:
The defendant posed as a woman on Facebook and convinced male victims to send explicit images.
He then threatened to share the images unless they paid money.
Held:
Found guilty of blackmail and unauthorised access to computer material under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
The court noted the psychological damage suffered by victims was severe.
Significance:
Recognised sextortion as a form of blackmail under digital law.
Emphasised that consent to send images does not justify later threats using them.
2. R v. T (2021) โ Revenge Porn and Blackmail
Facts:
Defendant threatened to share intimate images of an ex-partner unless they resumed the relationship.
Threats were made via messaging apps over several weeks.
Held:
Convicted of blackmail, and also under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 for disclosing private sexual images with intent to cause distress.
Significance:
Combined blackmail and revenge porn laws.
Showed courts are treating psychological coercion in digital spaces very seriously.
3. R v. S & K (2020) โ Ransomware Attack as Blackmail
Facts:
Hackers gained access to a small businessโs client database.
They demanded cryptocurrency in exchange for not leaking the data online.
Held:
Prosecuted under blackmail (s.21 Theft Act) and Computer Misuse Act.
Digital threats to leak data = threat to cause financial and reputational loss.
Significance:
One of the early UK cases treating cyber extortion via hacking as blackmail.
Showed that even non-physical threats involving data are legally actionable.
4. R v. Dosanjh (2019) โ Threats to Expose via Snapchat
Facts:
Defendant threatened a young woman with the release of private conversations and images unless she sent more explicit photos.
Used Snapchat to communicate and delete messages.
Held:
Convicted of blackmail, harassment, and malicious communications.
Court called it a predatory use of technology to control and exploit.
Significance:
Demonstrated how temporary message apps can be used for abuse โ and still leave enough evidence to convict.
Helped establish that emotional coercion is as damaging as financial.
5. R v. Wallace (2017) โ Corporate Digital Blackmail
Facts:
IT employee threatened to crash his employerโs servers unless he was paid ยฃ30,000.
Sent emails from anonymous accounts threatening data destruction.
Held:
Found guilty of blackmail and threats to damage property (as data can be considered a form of property).
Sentenced severely due to breach of trust.
Significance:
Set precedent for treating digital property as protectable under blackmail laws.
Important for dealing with internal threats in organisations.
6. R v. Azam (2022) โ Sextortion Targeting LGBTQ+ Victims
Facts:
Defendant targeted men on dating apps, threatening to โoutโ them to families and employers unless money was paid.
Victims were emotionally distressed and some paid large sums.
Held:
Convicted of multiple counts of blackmail.
Court said the defendant exploited shame and secrecy in vulnerable groups.
Significance:
Recognised how blackmail can be tailored to a victimโs identity or fears.
Affirmed that social harm and emotional distress are central to sentencing.
๐ง Key Legal Elements Across Cases
Across all cases, courts look for:
| Element | Example in Case(s) |
|---|---|
| A demand | Request for money, images, silence, etc. |
| A threat | Exposing images, leaking data, damaging systems |
| Unwarranted | Courts assess if demand was justified โ usually not |
| View to gain / cause loss | Emotional, financial, or reputational harm |
๐ Summary Table
| Case Name | Issue Type | Key Legal Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Hussain | Sextortion | Sexting + threat = blackmail |
| R v. T | Revenge porn + coercion | Blackmail & image disclosure = multiple offences |
| R v. S & K | Ransomware attack | Cyber threats = blackmail + computer misuse |
| R v. Dosanjh | Snapchat threats | Threat via temporary apps = blackmail |
| R v. Wallace | Corporate extortion | Threat to data = blackmail + breach of trust |
| R v. Azam | LGBTQ+ sextortion | Targeted blackmail = longer sentences |
โ Final Takeaways:
Digital blackmail is treated just as seriously as in-person threats.
Can involve sextortion, hacking, revenge porn, or online impersonation.
Courts focus on the impact on the victim, not just financial gain.
Blackmail overlaps with laws on malicious communication, harassment, and computer misuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments