Uppsala tingsrätt dismisses minor theft charge over unpaid lamp as intent remains unproved

Uppsala tingsrätt dismissed the minor theft charge against Anton Lindahl over an unpaid lamp valued at SEK 249, finding that the prosecution had not proved deliberate taking. It denied the prosecution’s request for a fine and ordered no payment between the parties.

The dispute was not whether the lamp remained unpaid: Lindahl admitted that it did. The question was whether he was heading for the exit intending to take it, or had noticed a missed scan and already turned back to pay before an employee challenged him.

The decisive gap concerned the moments before the employee intervened. The prosecution repeatedly described the employee as having seen Lindahl continue toward the exit and turn back only after being challenged. But the hearing record contained no testimony from that employee; the account reached the court through prosecution submissions.

The court gave that consistent description some weight, but did not treat repetition as independent corroboration. There was no video or other independent evidence resolving the competing accounts of when Lindahl turned.

The documents described during the hearing did not close that gap. A receipt recorded payment at 17:41 for three items totalling SEK 386, but did not identify those items or establish Lindahl’s intent. A screenshot of a 17:43 message to his partner, saying the lamp was missing from the receipt and he was returning to pay, supported his explanation without proving whether he turned before or after the challenge.

Neither account was independently corroborated on that precise timing. Because the prosecution had to prove deliberate taking, the unresolved conflict could not be overcome simply by pointing to the unpaid lamp.

The prosecution sought a conviction and a fine, relying on the employee’s reported observation together with nonpayment. It accepted that an unpaid item alone did not establish intent, and that the message timestamp did not settle the sequence of events.

Lindahl maintained that he believed the lamp had scanned and turned back after discovering the omission. He relied on the payment receipt and the message to his partner, insisting that he was already returning when challenged.

The case arose after Lindahl paid for other goods but left the lamp unpaid. His account placed the discovery near the store exit, where he said he checked the receipt and noticed the omission.

The dismissal did not establish that his account of turning back was correct. It established the narrower point that the evidence presented did not prove deliberate taking. The court imposed no fine; the prosecution had not specified an amount.