Solicitors should have already mentioned this Nic, but the definition of theft includes the vital passage 'with the intent to permanently deprive the owner'. If he wasn't even aware that he had these items on him then how can there be any intent to deprive? The burden of proof is on the prosecution under the rules of innocent til proven guilty, so if it was me I would be going not guilty on this basis.
Also is he in the Crown Court or Magistrates? If he's at mag I hate to say it but he doesn't stand a chance, their mentality is that you're guilty the second the police charge you. If he still can, I would advise him to go to Crown, chances are with a case this size they'll just throw it out to save the expense if he goes for that option, and if they don't at least he'll get a fair trial.
Logged