Leeds Magistrates' Court dismisses theft charge over drill taken after work ended

Leeds Magistrates' Court dismissed the theft charge against Callum Hirst over a £240 cordless drill taken from his former workplace. The Crown Prosecution Service sought a conviction and compensation for any proven outstanding loss, but the court found dishonest intent unproved and refused compensation.

Hirst admitted collecting the drill. The dispute was whether he dishonestly took it or believed a workshop supervisor had permitted a weekend loan. The court did not find that permission for this particular drill had been established; it found that the prosecution had not proved its allegation.

CCTV showed Hirst entering the workshop with a key after closing and leaving with a drill case. Without audio or a view of the tool shelf, it established removal and identity—not authorization or intention.

The business owner's statement said she had not approved a loan. But she had not heard the conversation between Hirst and the supervisor, who oversaw everyday tool use. An earlier written message from the supervisor permitted borrowing tools until Monday, providing some basis for Hirst's account despite leaving the scope of that permission uncertain.

The Sunday message about possibly keeping the drill until his final payment was sorted concerned the court. However, the extract lacked surrounding messages and did not settle his intention when collecting it. His Monday collection request and photograph supported an attempted return, but the photograph showed only a case beside closed shutters, not its contents.

The court weighed these competing indications and found dishonest intent unproved. Compensation also failed: no evidence established that the drill remained missing or that a specific outstanding loss had occurred. Uncertainty about recovery could not substitute for proof of loss.

The prosecution relied on the after-hours removal, the absence of the owner's approval and the Sunday payment-related message. It maintained that the evidence justified conviction. Its accusation that Hirst was lying was not, the court explained, evidence in itself.

The defence argued that removal did not establish dishonesty. It relied on the supervisor's earlier message and Hirst's recorded interview account of a weekend loan, while accepting that the message neither named this drill nor addressed permission after his employment ended. It also accepted that the Monday evidence did not prove a completed return.

Hirst's temporary work at Alderbench Repairs had ended two days before he entered the Leeds workshop. In his interview, he admitted taking the drill and acknowledged that he had not told the owner beforehand.

The decision leaves both the precise reach of the supervisor's permission and the drill's eventual recovery unresolved. Its central distinction is between proving that property was taken and proving that the taking was dishonest: the former was established, but the latter was not.