Haifa court rejects theft conviction over drill taken from shop after closing

Haifa Magistrate's Court has rejected the State of Israel's request to convict Eitan Barak of theft over a drill taken from a shop after closing. The court found that the State had not proved the taking was unauthorized or that Barak intended to steal it.

Barak did not dispute carrying the drill case out. The central question was whether a conversation with the store manager had given him permission to borrow the drill overnight.

A closing-time camera image and the defense's acceptance established that Barak carried the case out, the court said. The image did not itself establish what was inside or whether he had permission, although both sides treated the item as the shop's drill.

The State reported that the manager denied approving the loan, but that account appeared in submissions rather than testimony. Barak's contrary account was relayed through counsel and saved client answers; it was not admitted testimony or independently verified. The court did not treat either account as conclusively proved.

A dated WhatsApp message sent the next morning supported an intention to return the drill at that time. It did not establish what the manager had said beforehand or conclusively determine Barak's intent when he took it.

Witness 1 testified that the store notebook had no entry for Barak's drill but contained an earlier entry made after another employee returned a borrowed tool. That limited the significance of the missing entry, though it did not prove permission or explain why Barak's loan was unrecorded.

The State argued that Barak took the drill without permission and sought a theft conviction. It said the later message could not establish prior approval, and relied on the manager's reported denial alongside the camera image and missing notebook entry.

The defense said Barak understood the manager's response as permission to borrow the drill overnight. It argued that his message about returning it was inconsistent with an intention to steal and that Witness 1's evidence showed a notebook entry could be made later.

The State accepted that the camera could not show whether permission was given and that there was no recording or independent witness to the conversation. It also acknowledged that the missing entry did not settle the issue either way.

According to the defense account, Barak asked to borrow the drill for shelf assembly and took it home after the shop closed. The next morning, he messaged the manager that he was running late and would bring it back after lunch.

The court did not find that permission had definitely been given, or that the message alone proved Barak lacked an intent to steal. Its decision was that the State had not proved the disputed matters needed for conviction on the available record.