R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside

Last updated

R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside
110303 CNPP LSC 0200 (13065211183).jpg
Court Judicial Committee of the House of Lords
Full 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 1984
Citation(s) [1984] UKHL 1, [1983] 3 All ER 288, [1984] AC 320, [1983] 3 WLR 697, 77 Cr App R 309
Cases citedLawrence v MPC
Legislation citedTheft 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) sittingLord Fraser, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon, Lord Brightman
Keywords
  • Theft
  • appropriation
  • swapping prices

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).

Contents

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.

Facts

R v Morris

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]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft</span> Act of taking anothers property without consent

Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. Someone who carries out an act of theft may be described as a "thief".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protection of Children Act 1978</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Protection of Children Act 1978 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that criminalized indecent photographs of children. The Act applies in England and Wales. Similar provision for Scotland is contained in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and for Northern Ireland in the Protection of Children Order 1978.

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, "prejudice" differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft Act 1968</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Theft Act 1968 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales. On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of deception.

United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), was a federal criminal prosecution filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles against X-Citement Video and its owner, Rubin Gottesman, on three charges of trafficking in child pornography, specifically videos featuring the underaged Traci Lords. In 1989, a federal judge found Gottesman guilty and later sentenced him to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.

A mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft Act 1978</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Theft Act 1978 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It supplemented the earlier deception offences contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968 by reforming some aspects of those offences and adding new provisions. See also the Fraud Act 2006.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.

"Deception" was a legal term of art used in the definition of statutory offences in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a legal term of art in the Republic of Ireland.

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense. The liability is said to be strict because defendants could be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

Self-defence is a defence permitting reasonable force to be used to defend one's self or another. This defence arises both from common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is a justification defence rather than an excuse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Possession of stolen goods</span> Category of crime

Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods.

R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53 is an English case heard by the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The case concerned the interpretation of the word "appropriates" in the Theft Act 1968. The relevant statute is as follows:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law Act 1967</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Law Act 1967 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made some major changes to English criminal law, as part of wider liberal reforms by the Labour government elected in 1966. Most of it is still in force.

Making off without payment is a statutory offence in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Hong Kong. It was first introduced on the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and is intended to protect legitimate business concerns and applies where goods are supplied or a service is performed on the basis that payment will be made there and then. A taxi passenger who runs off without paying the fare at the end of the journey; and a motorist who fills up with petrol at a garage and drives off when the attendant is distracted. For these purposes, it must be proved that the defendant knew that payment on the spot was required or expected, and made off dishonestly with intent to avoid payment of the amount due.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Obtaining property by deception was formerly a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

<i>Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner</i>

Lawrence v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1972] AC 262 is an English criminal law case establishing that the appropriation of property — under the meaning of the Theft Act 1968 — can be consented to. The House of Lords here ruled that an appropriation of property can occur even with the consent of the owner. To this end, they commented that the drafter's intentions in leaving out consent from the offence was to relieve the prosecution of establishing a lack of consent.

Evidential burden or "production burden" is the obligation to produce evidence to properly raise an issue at trial. Failure to satisfy the evidential burden means that an issue cannot be raised at a court of law.

<i>Anderton v Ryan</i> 1985 House of Lords case related to impossible attempts in English criminal law

Anderton v Ryan [1985] is a House of Lords case in English criminal law, on whether an act which would amount to an offence but which by virtue of a misunderstanding of the goods involved was impossible breaks section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981; the court established against a similar defendant the next year that the reverse should hold true in future.

References

  1. 1 2 R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside [1984] UKHL 1 (13 October 1984), Judicial Committee of the House of Lords