(R v Clear  1 QB 670.) Where the victim is particularly timid or susceptible to the particular threat and the person issuing the threat does so with this knowledge or with intent to act on that particular timidity or susceptibility, they will be found to have acted with menaces. Conversely, where an apparently serious threat fails to intimidate the victim, this does not excuse the demander from liability if the ordinary person of normal stability and courage might have been influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede to the demand.
- R v Ferguson  EWCA Crim 356
- R v Asare  EWCA Crim 2516
- R v Ford  EWCA Crim 561
- R v Ablewhite  EWCA Crim 832
- R v Fu  EWCA Crim 248
- R v Cunningham  EWCA Crim 1884
- R v Killgallon  1 Cr App R (S) 279
- R v Agatha  EWCA Crim 2434
Archbold, Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice (Sweet & Maxwell, 65th ed, 2017): Chapter 21: Offences Under the Theft and Fraud Acts, 21-211 and Murphy, Blackstone's Criminal Practice (Oxford University Press, 27th ed, 2016): Chapter B5: Fraud and Blackmail (Westlaw).