Uppsala District Court dismisses theft charge over drill taken after disputed request

Uppsala District Court dismissed a theft charge against Johan Lind after finding that prosecutors had not proved he took an acquaintance's drill without permission. The court denied the Public Prosecutor's request for a penalty.

Lind accepted that he took the drill but said he believed its owner had agreed to lend it. The dispute turned on whether the prosecution could prove the taking was without permission and met the other requirements for theft.

A message Lind sent after the owner asked about the missing drill established that he had taken it. It also recorded his claim that he thought she had agreed and his promise to bring it back that night.

The court treated the message as relevant to Lind's stated belief, but not as independent proof of the owner's response. It did not prove that she had agreed, the judge reasoned, but neither did it prove that she had refused.

The prosecution reported that the owner denied agreeing; Lind said he understood her nod as permission. Those accounts were relayed in submissions rather than separately produced as testimony. A neighbour reportedly heard the request but not the response, and no other evidence resolved the disagreement.

The court said the prosecution had to prove the required elements beyond reasonable doubt; Lind did not have to prove that permission was given. The competing accounts and the message left reasonable doubt about permission and his belief.

The prosecutor asked for a conviction and a penalty, arguing that the message confirmed the taking but was only Lind's description of the conversation. The prosecution acknowledged that it had no recording or other separate evidence resolving the disagreement over permission.

Lind's defence argued that he genuinely believed he could borrow the drill and lacked the intent required for theft. It also said he had returned it, presenting that as support for his account that he meant to borrow rather than steal.

Lind and the drill's owner were casual acquaintances. He said he asked her in person to borrow it and understood her nod as agreement, though he was uncertain whether she had heard the full question.

The court did not decide that Lind's account was necessarily true or that a nod necessarily amounted to permission. It also gave no independent evidentiary weight to his assertion that he returned the drill, because no separate document or witness account confirmed it. The charge failed without reliance on that assertion.