Legal Case Summary
R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697
Definition of ‘appropriation’ in the offence of theft
Facts
The defendants were convicted of theft under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 after switching the labels on products in a supermarket to obtain a lower price. One of the defendants was caught before he paid, while the other was only caught afterwards.
Issues
S.1 of the Theft Act defines theft as dishonestly appropriating the property of another with intention to permanently deprive. S.3 of the Act defines ‘appropriation’ as ‘[a]ny assumption by a person of the rights of an owner’. The defendants argued that switching labels on the products and paying a lower price did not amount to appropriation.
Decision / Outcome
The convictions were upheld by the House of Lords. They held that the owners of the goods had a right to ensure that they were sold for the price the owner chose, which the defendants usurped when they switched the labels to be able to pay less. This amounted to an assumption of the owners’ rights, and therefore an appropriation.
The Lords also noted that this meant that the relevant appropriation, and therefore the actus reus for the offence of theft, was complete as soon as the goods had been removed from the shelves and the labels switched, regardless of the order in which this was done. It did not matter whether the defendants had yet paid for the goods: the offence of theft was already complete.
The offence of obtaining property by deception under s.15(1) of the Act should therefore be considered an additional, rather than alternative, offence, committed once the defendants had paid at the checkpoint. In the interests of simplicity, however, prosecutors might only charge the s.15 offence in such a situation, rather than both the s.1 and s.15 offences.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary of R v Morris [1984] AC 320 (House of Lords) remains accurate as a statement of the case and its immediate outcome. However, readers should be aware of two significant subsequent developments.
First, the House of Lords in R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 revisited and substantially modified the law on appropriation. The Lords held that appropriation can occur even where the owner consents to the transfer of property, departing from a narrow reading of Morris. The suggestion in Morris that appropriation requires an act adverse to the owner’s rights was effectively rejected. Gomez is the leading authority on this point and must be read alongside Morris.
Second, the offence of obtaining property by deception under s.15(1) of the Theft Act 1968, mentioned in the article, was abolished by the Fraud Act 2006. It has been replaced by the general offence of fraud under s.1 of the Fraud Act 2006. Any reference to s.15 as a current charging option is therefore outdated. Students should note that the Fraud Act 2006 now governs deception-based offending of this kind.
The core discussion of appropriation under s.1 and s.3 of the Theft Act 1968 otherwise reflects the law as it stood at the time of the decision, but Morris should not be read in isolation from Gomez and the later decision in R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241.
