Poznań court acquits man who rode away on another person's blue bicycle

The District Court in Poznań dismissed a theft charge against Paweł Lis and found him not guilty after the Public Prosecutor sought his conviction for riding away on another person's bicycle.

Lis accepted that he took the bicycle but said he mistook it for his own similar blue one. The court found that the taking was established, while the prosecution had not proved that he intended to take someone else's bicycle.

The court said the prosecution had to prove each required element of the charge. The fact that Lis rode away on the bicycle did not, by itself, establish what he believed at that moment; nor did he have to prove his innocence.

A presented photo supported the limited finding that Lis owned a similar blue bicycle the previous month. It did not show where his bicycle was on the day of the taking.

A presented message exchange showed that Lis contacted the bicycle's owner the next morning, described the taking as a possible mistake and arranged its return. The court said the reply and reported return added weight to the message, although it was written after the taking and was not direct proof of his earlier belief.

The court did not treat Lis's account of noticing a different bell at home as established: there was no independent corroboration. It also declined to rely on assertions about a forced lock, concealment or a camera clip as decisive facts. The clip was described in submissions but was not before the court as an exhibit.

Neither the photo nor the messages conclusively proved an honest mistake, the court said. But the prosecution acknowledged that it had no independent evidence resolving Lis's state of mind, and the evidence left material uncertainty about his intent.

The prosecutor maintained the request for a conviction but accepted that the taking alone did not settle intent. The prosecution argued that the later message and return could not conclusively establish what Lis believed when he rode away, and that the photo did not show where his own bicycle was that day.

Lis asked to be found not guilty. He said he had left his own blue bicycle outside the bakery, took the similar bicycle believing it was his, noticed the different bell at home and contacted the owner the next morning.

The dispute arose after Lis rode away on the other bicycle outside a bakery. The owner replied to his next-morning message with a time for its return, and the record says the bicycle was returned.

The exact message timestamps were not reproduced in the record, although the prosecution did not dispute that the message was sent the next morning or that the bicycle was returned. The judgment resolved the theft charge without establishing that Lis had left his own bicycle at the bakery or that his mistake account was certain.