Helsinki District Court dismisses theft charge over drill taken after tool-lending offer

Helsinki District Court dismissed a theft charge against Antti Lehto over his use of another person's drill. The Public Prosecutor had sought a conviction and a criminal penalty; the court imposed neither and ordered no payment between the parties.

The dispute turned on whether an earlier offer to lend tools covered Lehto's use of the drill without checking first, and whether he intended to steal it. The court found that the prosecution had not proved either lack of permission or the required intent.

The earlier message offered to lend tools if Lehto needed them and asked him to let the owner know. The judge said that wording supported the prosecution's view that notice was expected, but did not expressly say notice had to come before borrowing or identify the drill and occasion in question.

Admitted testimony from Witness 1 established that Lehto took the drill from shared storage for a repair without asking again that day and returned it the next morning. His return message also acknowledged that he had not checked first.

Those facts gave reason to question whether Lehto followed the request for notice, but did not by themselves prove that the taking was unauthorized. The court said there was no direct testimony from the owner or other independent evidence resolving the uncertainty.

The return was consistent with an intended temporary borrowing, but did not prove it. Equally, the apology could suggest Lehto knew he had not followed the requested process; it did not establish an intention to steal. The prosecution bore the burden of proving the required elements, and the evidence left both permission and intent uncertain.

The prosecution argued that the offer required Lehto to notify the owner and that his apology confirmed he had not checked. It maintained that returning the drill did not establish permission, while acknowledging that it had no independent evidence of his belief when he took it.

The defence argued that the message was a general offer covering the drill and did not clearly require advance notice. It said Lehto believed he could borrow it, intended to return it and did so.

The judge treated Lehto's account, relayed by counsel, as an attributed account rather than independently verified proof. The prosecution's account of the owner's position was likewise a submission, not direct testimony.

The tool-lending message was sent two weeks before the incident. After taking the drill for a small repair, Lehto returned it to storage and messaged its owner that it was back, apologizing for not checking first.

The dismissal does not establish that the owner authorized this particular use or independently verify Lehto's account of what he believed. It reflects the prosecution's failure to prove the charge on the available record.