Bristol Magistrates' Court dismisses theft charge over unpaid torch

Bristol Magistrates' Court dismissed a theft charge against Elliot Mercer after the Crown Prosecution Service failed to prove that he intended to take a torch without paying. The Crown had sought a conviction; the court entered none and made no payment or compensation order.

The dispute turned on whether Mercer deliberately left a shop with the £24 torch unpaid or had forgotten it was in his basket. The court said the evidence did not resolve that question.

The court identified intent as the material issue and said the Crown had to support it with reliable evidence. An unpaid item alone was not enough to establish that Mercer intended to steal it.

A till receipt showed that Mercer paid £1.80 for a drink and did not list the torch. The judge treated it as reliable for those limited facts, but said it did not show what Mercer noticed, why the torch was unpaid or what was said after he left. It was consistent with both sides' accounts.

The Crown argued that an employee told Mercer the torch was unpaid and that he still did not pay. But the hearing contained no testimony from the assistant, and the court said the Crown's assertions were not evidence of the exchange.

Mercer's account that he forgot the torch and offered to pay was not independent testimony. Nor was an assistant's note, described by the defence as recording an offer, produced for the court to examine. The judge could not establish when Mercer realised the torch was unpaid or whether he knowingly refused to pay.

The Crown maintained that Mercer learned of the nonpayment after an employee called out and nevertheless did not pay. It argued that his initial awareness did not matter because he later knew the torch was unpaid.

The defence said Mercer had forgotten the torch and offered to pay when stopped. It acknowledged that neither his account nor the described note established when he first realised the torch was unpaid or proved that payment was made.

The case concerned a Bristol shop visit in which Mercer placed a torch in his basket, paid for a drink and passed the tills with the torch unpaid. A shop assistant stopped him outside.

The dismissal does not establish that Mercer paid for the torch or that his account was correct. It reflects the court's conclusion that the Crown had not proved the required intent on the evidence presented.