R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside [1984] are Englishhighest court conjoined appeal decisions as to the extent of appropriation that can be considered criminal (as the law of theft is codified in the Theft Act 1968).
The Crown and or against (most formally Regina versus) David Alan Morris (appellant); Cyril James Anderton and Asda Stores Limited (on behalf of Her Majesty) and James Burnside (appellant)
Decided
20, 21 July, judgement delivered 13 October 1984
Citation(s)
[1984] UKHL 1, [1983] 3 All ER 288, [1984] AC 320, [1983] 3 WLR 697, 77 Cr App R 309
Cases cited
Lawrence v MPC
Legislation cited
Theft Act 1968
Case history
Prior action(s)
Conviction by courts of first instance, then 8 Mar 1983 [1983] QB 587; [1983] 2 WLR 768; [1983] 2 All ER 448; 77 Cr App R 164, CA 5 May 1983 appeal petition allowed [1983] 1 WLR 625
Subsequent action(s)
None
Case opinions
Lord Roskill, per curiam (delivering the judgment of the court, concurred in by all others),
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting
Lord Fraser, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon, Lord Brightman
Keywords
Theft
appropriation
swapping prices
R v Morris was a final appeal from the Court of Appeal; Anderton v Burnside a leapfrog final appeal from the Divisional Court (the usual first appellate court from the Magistrates if a point of law is in question).
Agreeing with Lord Roskill, per curiam (formulating the decision of the whole court), the Law Lords established that in the English law of theft, an appropriation is established if the defendant clearly assumes a right of the owner, that is the prosecution proves such assumption beyond a reasonable doubt.
On 30 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 he was asked for and paid those lesser prices. He was then arrested.
Anderton v Burnside
Burnside was seen to remove a price label £2.73 from a joint of pork and attached it to another (at £6.91). The checkout was notified and did not allow him to leave the store. He was then arrested.
Grounds for appeal
Both cases
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.
Judgment
Lord Roskill in rejecting the defence team's argument, supported by division between "distinguished academic lawyers"[1] 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…"[1]
morris, anderton, burnside, 1984, english, highest, court, conjoined, appeal, decisions, extent, appropriation, that, considered, criminal, theft, codified, theft, 1968, courtjudicial, committee, house, lordsfull, case, namethe, crown, against, most, formally,. R v Morris Anderton v Burnside 1984 are English highest court conjoined appeal decisions as to the extent of appropriation that can be considered criminal as the law of theft is codified in the Theft Act 1968 R v Morris Anderton v BurnsideCourtJudicial Committee of the House of LordsFull case nameThe Crown and or against most formally Regina versus David Alan Morris appellant Cyril James Anderton and Asda Stores Limited on behalf of Her Majesty and James Burnside appellant Decided20 21 July judgement delivered 13 October 1984Citation s 1984 UKHL 1 1983 3 All ER 288 1984 AC 320 1983 3 WLR 697 77 Cr App R 309Cases citedLawrence v MPCLegislation citedTheft Act 1968Case historyPrior action s Conviction by courts of first instance then8 Mar 1983 1983 QB 587 1983 2 WLR 768 1983 2 All ER 448 77 Cr App R 164 CA5 May 1983 appeal petition allowed 1983 1 WLR 625Subsequent action s NoneCase opinionsLord Roskill per curiam delivering the judgment of the court concurred in by all others Court membershipJudge s sittingLord Fraser Lord Edmund Davies Lord Roskill Lord Brandon Lord BrightmanKeywordsTheftappropriationswapping pricesR v Morris was a final appeal from the Court of Appeal Anderton v Burnside a leapfrog final appeal from the Divisional Court the usual first appellate court from the Magistrates if a point of law is in question Agreeing with Lord Roskill per curiam formulating the decision of the whole court the Law Lords established that in the English law of theft an appropriation is established if the defendant clearly assumes a right of the owner that is the prosecution proves such assumption beyond a reasonable doubt Contents 1 Facts 1 1 R v Morris 1 2 Anderton v Burnside 2 Grounds for appeal 2 1 Both cases 3 Judgment 4 ReferencesFacts EditR v Morris Edit On 30 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 he was asked for and paid those lesser prices He was then arrested Anderton v Burnside Edit Burnside was seen to remove a price label 2 73 from a joint of pork and attached it to another at 6 91 The checkout was notified and did not allow him to leave the store He was then arrested Grounds for appeal EditBoth cases Edit 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 Judgment EditLord Roskill in rejecting the defence team s argument supported by division between distinguished academic lawyers 1 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 1 References Edit a b R v Morris Anderton v Burnside 1984 UKHL 1 13 October 1984 Judicial Committee of the House of Lords Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title R v Morris Anderton v Burnside amp oldid 973416845, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
