What is the ratio in R v Morris?

Under s.3 Theft Act 1968, appropriation occurs when a defendant assumes any of the rights of an owner over property, not necessarily all the owner's rights.

What did the court decide in R v Morris?

The House of Lords upheld the theft conviction, ruling that switching price labels constituted appropriation by assuming the owner's right to price goods.

Why is R v Morris important for theft law?

It established a broad interpretation of appropriation that encompasses various interferences with property rights, forming the foundation for modern theft law alongside Gomez.

What is the ratio in R v Morris?

Under s.3 Theft Act 1968, appropriation occurs when a defendant assumes any of the rights of an owner over property, not necessarily all the owner's rights.

What did the court decide in R v Morris?

The House of Lords upheld the theft conviction, ruling that switching price labels constituted appropriation by assuming the owner's right to price goods.

Why is R v Morris important for theft law?

It established a broad interpretation of appropriation that encompasses various interferences with property rights, forming the foundation for modern theft law alongside Gomez.

Criminal1 min read

R v Morris

[1984] AC 320House of Lords1984

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“House of Lords defines theft as any assumption of owner's rights”

Facts

The defendant switched price labels on goods in a supermarket, replacing higher prices with lower ones, and was arrested before leaving the shop. He argued that he had not appropriated the goods as he had not assumed all the rights of ownership.

Issues

Whether appropriation under s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 requires assumption of all the rights of ownership, or whether assumption of any right of ownership is sufficient.

Held

Appropriation occurs when a defendant assumes any of the rights of an owner, not all of them. The switching of price labels constituted appropriation and therefore theft.

Significance

This case provided crucial clarification of the actus reus of theft, establishing a broad interpretation of appropriation that has been fundamental to theft prosecutions. It confirmed that theft can occur even in the early stages of dishonest conduct.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Morris. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Morris [1984] AC 320 (HL)

Criminal LawTheft

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDLSQE1

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.