Kowloon City court acquits man of theft after umbrella was left unpaid

Kowloon City Magistrates' Courts dismissed a theft charge against Lau Chi-kin and found him not guilty after the prosecution sought a conviction over an unpaid umbrella. No penalty, compensation or payment was ordered.

The court found that Lau had not paid for the umbrella, but said the prosecution had not proved that he knowingly took it. The dispute turned on whether an omitted payment and a reported response to a cashier's call established theft, rather than a possible mistake.

The payment record showed an HK$18 purchase of one drink and no umbrella. Lau's defence conceded the umbrella was unpaid, but the court said the record could not show what he believed at the time or whether he heard the cashier.

The prosecution reported that the cashier called to Lau and he kept walking. The judge considered that account relevant, but said the record lacked details about the timing, distance, words used, number of calls and when Lau stopped. Without them, the court could not infer that he heard a clear call and deliberately continued to leave.

Lau's account that he thought the umbrella had been scanned and stopped when called was relayed through defence submissions. The judge did not find that explanation proven, but said its lack of independent support did not establish the prosecution's allegation. The prosecution retained the burden of proving the required elements.

The prosecution argued that the payment record and the cashier's reported observation, considered together, supported a finding that Lau knowingly took the umbrella. It accepted that the record alone could not establish his belief and that the account lacked precise timing and distance.

The defence argued that nonpayment could not by itself prove knowledge. It acknowledged that there was no independent evidence confirming Lau's account, but submitted that the gaps in the reported observation and the absence of CCTV left the prosecution unable to prove its case.

The HKSAR brought the theft charge after Lau paid for a drink but not the umbrella. The parties agreed on the transaction; they disagreed about what Lau knew and how he responded to the cashier.

The judgment resolves the charge on the supplied record. Its finding that the umbrella was unpaid does not establish criminal intent, and the acquittal does not amount to a finding that Lau's explanation was true.