R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside
| R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside | |
|---|---|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Decided | 13 October 1983 |
| Citation(s) | [1984] UKHL 1, [1983] 3 All ER 288, [1984] AC 320, [1983] 3 WLR 697 |
| Cases cited | Lawrence v MPC |
| Legislation cited | Theft Act 1968 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | None |
| Subsequent action(s) | None |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Lord Fraser, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon, Lord Brightman |
| Keywords | |
| Theft, Appropriation | |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lord Roskill in rejecting the defence's submission said:
...
Wikipedia