R v Morris [1984] AC 320 (HL)

Facts

  • The defendants in R v Morris switched price labels on supermarket items to pay less for more expensive goods.
  • Customers were permitted by the shop to handle and select items before purchase.
  • The defendants’ actions raised the question whether switching price labels constituted "appropriation" as defined under the Theft Act 1968.
  • The case proceeded to the House of Lords for determination on the scope of "appropriation."

Issues

  1. Whether the act of switching price labels on goods amounts to an appropriation of the owner’s rights for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968.
  2. Whether appropriation under the Theft Act requires adverse interference with the owner’s rights.
  3. The extent to which assumption of any, rather than all, of the owner’s rights constitutes appropriation.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that the act of switching price labels was an appropriation of the owner’s rights under the Theft Act 1968.
  • It was determined that assuming any of the rights of the owner—including the right to determine the price—satisfied the requirement of appropriation.
  • The Court clarified that appropriation does not require taking all of the owner's rights; the assumption of any one right is sufficient.
  • The judgment noted that appropriation can occur even before actual removal of goods from a store.
  • The requirement for "adverse interference" with ownership rights, as interpreted in Morris, was later overruled by R v Gomez [1993] AC 442.

Legal Principles

  • Appropriation under the Theft Act 1968 consists of the assumption of any of the rights of an owner, not necessarily all.
  • Dishonest assumption of an owner’s right, such as setting the price, can constitute the actus reus of theft.
  • The concept of appropriation is not dependent on the absence of the owner’s consent when dishonesty is present (as clarified in later cases).
  • Legal developments, particularly R v Gomez, removed the necessity for “adverse interference” in appropriation.
  • The offense of theft requires dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.

Conclusion

R v Morris clarified that appropriation under the Theft Act involves assuming any of the owner’s rights, such as the right to set the price of goods. While significant in shaping legal interpretation of appropriation, its requirement for adverse interference was later rejected by the House of Lords in R v Gomez, which further broadened liability under the theft provisions.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal