sbiddle:

 

What pile on crowd? 

 

For clarity I was referring to the people +1ing your initial post. And those generally expressing similar comments without understanding the legal implications. Like the below post.

Andib:

 

The story reads very one sided, There's 100% a side that isn't being told. Why would the employer only be treating this as an employment issue and not pressing theft charges for employees "Stealing" company assets?  Vehicles are a pretty big thing to let slide if it was exactly as the article read.

 

This is why people who aren't lawyers and don't have legal training shouldn't be making these kinds of comments. Again, you wouldn't comment on what should happen in a surgical room or whatever if you aren't a doctor; show some similar respect in relation to something similarly complex. Theft as an offence requires the prosecution to establish, amongst other things, that in taking physical goods and intending to deprive the owner of it, that the offender did so without what is called a "claim of right", i.e. does not genuinely/honestly believe that they are entitled to possession/ownership of the goods concerned. Taking the respondents' claims literally, they clearly believe that (1) they own the property and/or (2) that they have an entitlement to it.

Whether they are right or wrong is another matter. Once the police investigated, any criminal complaint would have been dismissed quickly. This however doesn't determine the merits of the civil dispute.

To labour the point: it's best not to offer these sorts of opinions if you lack the requisite knowledge to form a reasoned basis for any opinion.