EXTORTION CASE WORK

 HYPERLINK "http://mail.yahoo.com/" \o "Click to search for messages with same subject"  Extortion Case Work
Student Name
University
Course Title
Professor
Date
Introduction
The offence of extortion as defined in section 446 of the Canadian criminal code, involves actions by any person who without reasonable justification or excuse and with the intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done. The offence has three basic elements, communication process to explain one’s feelings and threatening accusation of any crime or offense or any injury to the person or property or relative (Spahn, 2012). the threat should also be with intent to extort money or pecuniary advantage as to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing an act against his/her will. It is to be noted that a threat is not considered necessary for the commission of extortion in common law. However, in many jurisdictions, the crime of extortion has been expanded to include the obtaining of money, property, or anything of value by any person through the use of threats.
Developing the case
The client in this case communicated the wish to have the money but did not use threats. In the case of Thorne v motor trade association [1937] ac 797, the House of Lords illustrated that there are courses of action, which a person might express his intention of taking which would constitute threats within the meaning of that word as used but which would in some circumstances be in themselves lawful. For instance, the statement of the intention to place the name of a person on a “stop list” in circumstances such as that which existed in Thorne v. motor trade association ( HYPERLINK "-csc.gc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.asp" Supreme Court of Canada,  HYPERLINK "/en" Lexum and the Research Chair of Legal Information of the Law Faculty at the  HYPERLINK "/pages_diverses/english.html" University of Montreal; judgments of the supreme court of Canada.)
In the case of R. v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 368, the extortion was allegedly committed by a request made by the lawyer rousseau to the lawyer of the security company for the sum of $10,000 to avoid publicity which, in connection with events involving employees, would have been bad for the company. The lawyer Rousseau allegedly said that he would be able to have the charges quietly dropped. The evidence of this request for money rested simply on the testimony of the company's lawyer. The fact that someone asks another person for a sum of money for committing an unlawful act which might be helpful to that other person does not constitute extortion within the meaning of section 305(1) Criminal Code. However the approach made by respondent to a.d.t. security system Inc. is described, r...