R v Morris [1984]

1. Facts:

• Scenario: The defendant switched price labels on items in a store to purchase them at a cheaper price.

• Issue: Whether this act constituted theft, given the defendant argued they had implied consent from the owner.

2. Outcome:

• Decision: The defendant was charged with theft. The court found that by switching the labels, the defendant had assumed a right of the owner, constituting adverse interference with or usurpation of the owner’s rights.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Appropriation and Consent: The ruling established that appropriation must involve non-consensual actions. This contrasted with the Lawrence decision, which allowed for theft even with the owner's consent.

• Judicial Affirmation and Overruling: The Morris decision was affirmed in R v Skipp (1975) but was later overruled in Gomez, which adopted a broader view on appropriation.

• Legal Implications: The case highlighted the complexity of appropriation in theft, emphasising the need to consider 'dishonest appropriation' rather than isolating appropriation from its mental element. This approach integrates the defendant's intent, complicating the legal framework by merging the actus reus with the mens rea.