Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State asks for a conviction of Sibusiso Dlamini for theft of a drill. The defendant denies that the record proves theft. The hearing record includes testimony about the borrowing arrangement, a presented Tuesday message about the drill’s return, and the parties’ submissions. The parties were invited to make final statements and have done so. No further proof is identified as obtainable, and the matter is ready for decision. 2. The State also proposed that the defendant pay $300 for one night’s use, while referring elsewhere to a drill value of 1800. The record does not establish a currency, a proven loss, or an agreed settlement. The defendant did not accept the proposed payment as resolving the criminal charge. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the defendant borrowed the drill subject to an agreed return time; whether and when it was returned; and whether the State proved the defendant intended to steal it. The State bears the burden of proving each required element with reliable evidence. Rule 41 requires proof of every element in a criminal matter, and Rule 8 makes clear that suspicion or accusation alone is not proof. Submissions of the parties 4. The State relies on Witness 1’s testimony that the defendant asked to use the drill at home on Monday night and agreed to return it before opening Tuesday. It argues that the defendant’s conduct and the late return support its request for conviction. The State also asserts that Nandi’s signed account describes seeing the defendant carry out the drill, and proposes payment for one night’s use. 5. The defendant acknowledges that the drill was returned late and that this was wrong. The defendant argues that a missed deadline does not establish an intention to steal. The defendant relies on the Tuesday message as evidence of return and apology, but does not claim that it proves permission. The defendant says an earlier message was understood as allowing an overnight loan, while candidly acknowledging that the earlier message is unavailable and that the account is not independent proof. Evidence and findings 6. Witness 1’s admitted testimony establishes that the defendant asked to borrow the drill and agreed to return it before opening Tuesday. The defendant’s submissions acknowledge a late return. I find the borrowing arrangement and missed deadline established. The testimony proves the agreed time; the defendant’s acknowledgment and the return message support that the deadline was missed. 7. The defendant presented a timestamped Tuesday WhatsApp exchange. It says, “Drill back on your desk. Sorry I’m late,” and Nandi replies, “Received. You should not have taken it.” The message supports that the defendant reported the drill back at 11:18 and apologized for lateness. Nandi’s reply supports that she objected to the taking. The exchange does not establish what the defendant intended when borrowing the drill. The repeated exhibit entries describe the same exchange and are not independent corroboration. 8. The earlier message said to support the defendant’s understanding is not in evidence. The defendant’s attributed account of it is not proof that permission was given. Equally, the State’s assertion that a signed account describes Nandi seeing the defendant carry out the drill is not accompanied by that account in the supplied record. I do not treat either unavailable or unproduced material as established evidence. Reasons 9. The State has proved that the defendant borrowed the drill under an agreed return arrangement and returned it late. Those facts may reasonably raise concern about the defendant’s conduct, but the State must prove dishonest intent, not merely unauthorized or late use. Rule 41 requires reliable proof of each required element; Rule 8 prevents the court from treating suspicion as proof. 10. The State argues that a person intending to steal would not ask to borrow the drill. That reasoning cuts against an inference of planned theft, but it is an argument rather than independent evidence of the defendant’s state of mind. The borrowing request and agreed return time are consistent with an intention to return the drill. The late return and apology establish lateness, but do not, without more, establish that the defendant intended to keep the drill or deprive Nandi of it. 11. The return message is a presented exhibit and has some weight as a contemporaneous, timestamped record. Its wording supports return and lateness; Nandi’s reply supports her objection. Neither part resolves the defendant’s intent at the time of borrowing. The defendant’s unavailable-message account cannot fill that gap, but the defendant does not bear the burden of proving permission or innocence. The State’s final submissions repeat its inference and refer to an account not produced; they add no reliable evidence of intent. 12. The State’s proposed $300 payment does not change this conclusion. An offer to pay for use is not an admission of theft, and no settlement is shown. The record also does not establish a supported amount of loss or a basis for ordering payment in this criminal matter. The State has therefore failed to prove the charge, and no monetary relief is justified on this record. Final order 13. The State’s request for a conviction of theft is denied. The defendant is not convicted on the charge presented in this hearing. 14. The State’s proposed $300 payment is not ordered. No amount is awarded to the State or Nandi, and no payment obligation is imposed on the defendant. This order decides only the charge and requested relief on the supplied record; it does not determine any separate civil claim.