Petgrave RELEASED from bail conditions. No charges

[ginger]

The correct decision. A mixture of relief and sadness, there's just no winners in this situation at all.

Unfortunately it's not just trolls/bots, but real life EIHL fans too (although less overt racism). People who've blatantly never stepped foot on an ice rink unless they cling to the boards for dear life.

[smbmetal]

Finally common sense prevails! Really pleased for all involved this is now over so that everyone involved can move on with their lives. I’m not going to pretend I know all the ins and outs when it comes to the legal system but to me this dragged on for far too long!

The old saying, “all’s well that ends well” rings true here.

I hope Petgrave can claim back the majority of his legal expenses too.

[Bryan]

If I’ve understood this (maybe not!) the result is that CPS declined to bring the case. Thus surely must mean the South Yorkshire Police tried to get a prosecution. If so absolutely disgusting. At last we can talk about it and I am sure we would all agreed that it was obviously an awful accident. The idea of a prosecution after all this time reflects badly on our authorities.

Awful for Johnson and family but dreadful too for Petgrave to have his liberty removed for a year and a half. This is a broken system.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The police do not prosecute, the CPS does that, a clue is in the name, Crown PROSECUTION service. The police investigate, collect and preserve evidence and present it to the CPS for a charging decision, that includes evidence that could indicate innocence as well as guilt.

I think I fully understand that !

[mark]

If I’ve understood this (maybe not!) the result is that CPS declined to bring the case. Thus surely must mean the South Yorkshire Police tried to get a prosecution. If so absolutely disgusting.

Not when you have said this you don't. They don't try to get a prosecution, they investigate to gather evidence and pass it to the CPS. It is not "disgusting" , it's their job which they have done professionally.

[Bryan]

If I’ve understood this (maybe not!) the result is that CPS declined to bring the case. Thus surely must mean the South Yorkshire Police tried to get a prosecution. If so absolutely disgusting.

Not when you have said this you don't. They don't try to get a prosecution, they investigate to gather evidence and pass it to the CPS. It is not "disgusting" , it's their job which they have done professionally.

You seem overanxious to find fault when there is none. It is not what I said, read more carefully

[mark]

If I’ve understood this (maybe not!) the result is that CPS declined to bring the case. Thus surely must mean the South Yorkshire Police tried to get a prosecution. If so absolutely disgusting.

Not when you have said this you don't. They don't try to get a prosecution, they investigate to gather evidence and pass it to the CPS. It is not "disgusting" , it's their job which they have done professionally.

You seem overanxious to find fault when there is none. It is not what I said, read more carefully

You clearly said that it meant the "South Yorkshire Police tried to get a prosecution. If so absolutely disgusting"

Not sure how you can defend that.

[greeny]

It happened , its done, now hopefully all involved can move on best they can,,,

[Bryan]

Let me try and clarify this silly argument. The situation is this.
The police investigate cases and normally if they feel there is a case to answer they send it to the CPS who decide whether or not to prosecute on the basis of the evidence provided. I’m sure we all understand that. However there are a small number of cases when they must pass the evidence on to the CPS. One of these is when a death is involved. That would have happened in the Petgrave case.

Unless we have access to information which is not public we do not know when the South Yorkshire Police passed this case to the CPS. So we have no way of knowing whether this appalling delay was the responsibility of the Police or the CPS or both. Whatever, the system is obviously broken and poor Petgrave is the unfortunate victim. I hope he has access to some way of obtaining compensation.

End.

[mark]

Let me try and clarify this silly argument. The situation is this.
The police investigate cases and normally if they feel there is a case to answer they send it to the CPS who decide whether or not to prosecute on the basis of the evidence provided. I’m sure we all understand that. However there are a small number of cases when they must pass the evidence on to the CPS. One of these is when a death is involved. That would have happened in the Petgrave case.

Unless we have access to information which is not public we do not know when the South Yorkshire Police passed this case to the CPS. So we have no way of knowing whether this appalling delay was the responsibility of the Police or the CPS or both. Whatever, the system is obviously broken and poor Petgrave is the unfortunate victim. I hope he has access to some way of obtaining compensation.

End.

The case was passed to CPS around 12 months ago, that was reported and is public knowledge. You are now saying something completely different. Sorry if you think being called on that is silly but I guess some of us like a bit more accuracy in our public statements.

End ?, not your call to make.

[Bryan]

Strange now I recall a recent SPA comment when renewing the arrest that they were still investigating. Perhaps they were mistaken.