R v Morris
Appropriation involves an assumption of any of the rights of the owner, such as switching price labels in a shop.
Facts
Mr Morris took goods from the shelves of a supermarket and replaced the price labels with labels showing lower prices. He paid the lower prices at the checkout and was arrested. In a second case heard with his, the defendant switched labels but was caught before paying. Both were convicted of theft.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the convictions. Lord Roskill said that it is enough for an appropriation that the defendant assumes any of the rights of the owner, not all of them, and that switching price labels was such an assumption. However, he also said, obiter, that an appropriation involves an act by way of adverse interference with or usurpation of the owner's rights, so that merely taking goods from a shelf with the owner's authority, to pay for them at the checkout, would not be an appropriation. That part of the reasoning was later rejected in R v Gomez.
Related cases on theft, robbery, burglary and fraud
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182
- Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104
- Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391
- Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626
- Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183
- R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575, [2021] QB 685
- R v Collins [1973] QB 100
- R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
