R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside [1984] UKHL 1

Citation:R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside [1984] UKHL 1

Rule of thumb:Do all acts of fraud & crime generally have to be based upon an exactly in-point statutory provision for that specific crime? No, as long as there is a criminal law which is basically along the fundamental lines of the offence then a person can be successfully prosecuted for this.

Judgment:

Switching price tags basically in a shop was deemed to be theft – this was a case where the exact meaning of the statute had to be carefully considered in order to ensure that it had actually been breached.

Ratio-decidendi:

" ... 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 ...'

Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.