Court House of Lords Cases cited Lawrence v MPC Prior action(s) None | Decided 13 October 1983 Legislation cited Theft Act 1968 | |
Citation(s) [1984] UKHL 1, [1983] 3 All ER 288, [1984] AC 320, [1983] 3 WLR 697 | ||
R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside [1984] UKHL 1 are House of Lords cases in English law, concerning the interpretation of the word "appropriates" in the Theft Act 1968.
Contents
They are consolidated appeals, where R v Morris is from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) while Anderton v Burnside is from the Divisional Court.
The case established that in the English law of theft, an appropriation is established if the defendant assumes only a right of the owner instead of all the rights of the owner.
R v Morris
On the 30th October 1981 Morris took goods from the shelves of a supermarket. He replaced the price labels attached to them with labels showing a lesser price than the originals. At the checkout point he was asked for and paid those lesser prices. He was then arrested.
Anderton v Burnside
Burnside was seen to remove a price label from a joint of pork in the supermarket and attach it to a second joint. This action was detected at the checkout point but before he had paid for that second joint which at that moment bore a price label showing a price of £2.73 whereas the label should have shown a price of £6.91 Burnside was then arrested.
R v Morris
If a person has substituted on an item of goods displayed in a self-service store a price label showing a lesser price for one showing a greater price, with the intention of paying the lesser price and then pays the lesser price at the till and takes the goods, is there at any stage a 'dishonest appropriation' for the purposes of Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 and if so, at what point does such appropriation take place.
Anderton v Burnside
If a person has substituted on an item of goods displayed in a self-service store a price label showing a lesser price for one showing a greater price, with the intention of paying the lesser price, and then pays the lesser price at the till and takes the goods, is there at any stage a 'dishonest appropriation' for the purposes of section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.
Judgment
Lord Roskill in rejecting the defence's submission said:
" ... the later words "any later assumption of a right" in subsection (1) and the words in subsection (2) "no later assumption by him of rights" seem to me to militate strongly against the correctness of the submission. Moreover the provisions of section 2(1)(a) also seem to point in the same direction. It follows therefore that it is enough for the prosecution if they have proved in these cases the assumption by the defendants of any of the rights of the owner of the goods in question ... "