Lancashire Police and Crime Comissioner cleared over expenses scandal

Lancashire Telegraph: Lancashire Police and Crime Comissioner cleared over expenses scandal Lancashire Police and Crime Comissioner cleared over expenses scandal

LANCASHIRE Police and Crime Commissioner Clive Grunshaw will not face prosecution over his expenses when a Labour county councillor, it was announced this afternoon.

The Crown Prosecution Service said there was no evidence of dishonest intent concerned the disputed cash claims Former milkman Mr Grunshaw was investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commssion over claims made by Conservative county councillor for Chorley, Sam Chapman he had ‘double claimed’ expenses for meetings of the county council and police authority in Preston on the same days from his Fleetwood home.

CPS lawyer Gemma Carsey said: “A file was submitted in October 2013, and all evidence received in mid-November 2013, in order for the CPS to consider if potential charges of fraud by false misrepresentation should be brought against Mr Clive Grunshaw. To prosecute this offence dishonesty must be proved.

“Our assessment is that there is insufficient evidence to show that any of these claims was submitted dishonestly.

“In all the circumstances of this case, therefore, we have concluded that no further action should be taken.”

See tomorrow Lancashire Telegraph for full story and reaction

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:54pm Thu 9 Jan 14

makaveli96 says...

So he wasnt "milking" the system then!
So he wasnt "milking" the system then! makaveli96

4:03pm Thu 9 Jan 14

You're not mugging me off that easily says...

Why did we need to know he used to be a milkman ?
Why did we need to know he used to be a milkman ? You're not mugging me off that easily

4:26pm Thu 9 Jan 14

mavrick says...

I hope he sues the councillor from Chorley.
I hope he sues the councillor from Chorley. mavrick

4:50pm Thu 9 Jan 14

phil kernot says...

Just because cps said no case to answer doesn't mean not guilty , just means , cps work on if thay can't get a 90% conviction won't take you to court( like saying not in the public interest tax payers money and all that)one time it was the jury to decided not the the cps thay just put the case together ,, usually there's no smoke without fire ,,
Just because cps said no case to answer doesn't mean not guilty , just means , cps work on if thay can't get a 90% conviction won't take you to court( like saying not in the public interest tax payers money and all that)one time it was the jury to decided not the the cps thay just put the case together ,, usually there's no smoke without fire ,, phil kernot

6:01pm Thu 9 Jan 14

glossopkid says...

I knew this was going to happen!!! There was no way the CPS would have taken this case forward, it would have been a total embarrassment for the police commissioner.

What A load of **** our justice system has become.

SHAME ON YOU CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE, YOUR PATHETIC!
I knew this was going to happen!!! There was no way the CPS would have taken this case forward, it would have been a total embarrassment for the police commissioner. What A load of **** our justice system has become. SHAME ON YOU CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE, YOUR PATHETIC! glossopkid

6:49pm Thu 9 Jan 14

barryinthailand says...

He knew his reporting of expenses was wrong and freely admitted that, what he denied was that it was fraud. A simple mistake, you can always vote to get him out next time if you want, but I doubt you care.
He knew his reporting of expenses was wrong and freely admitted that, what he denied was that it was fraud. A simple mistake, you can always vote to get him out next time if you want, but I doubt you care. barryinthailand

1:17am Fri 10 Jan 14

Pan-cake says...

mavrick wrote:
I hope he sues the councillor from Chorley.
Why? He admitted the facts raised by Sam Chapman were true. The argument was whether he intended to defraud LCC. The CPS has decided that he did not. Or at least there was little chance of a successful prosecution and therefore it would not be in the public interest to proceed.
It also means there need not be a by election to select a new PCC -which would have been very embarrassing for both Labour (who say they would get rid of PCCs) and Conservatives (who conjured up the whole silly idea).
It remains to be seen whether Grunshaw will let us know whether any of his officers would be allowed to get away with such slovenly record keeping in their expenses. And also who are the senior Labour politicians who are reported to have distanced themselves from Grunshaw and had been urging him to resign over the whole sorry saga?
[quote][p][bold]mavrick[/bold] wrote: I hope he sues the councillor from Chorley.[/p][/quote]Why? He admitted the facts raised by Sam Chapman were true. The argument was whether he intended to defraud LCC. The CPS has decided that he did not. Or at least there was little chance of a successful prosecution and therefore it would not be in the public interest to proceed. It also means there need not be a by election to select a new PCC -which would have been very embarrassing for both Labour (who say they would get rid of PCCs) and Conservatives (who conjured up the whole silly idea). It remains to be seen whether Grunshaw will let us know whether any of his officers would be allowed to get away with such slovenly record keeping in their expenses. And also who are the senior Labour politicians who are reported to have distanced themselves from Grunshaw and had been urging him to resign over the whole sorry saga? Pan-cake

1:23am Fri 10 Jan 14

Pan-cake says...

barryinthailand wrote:
He knew his reporting of expenses was wrong and freely admitted that, what he denied was that it was fraud. A simple mistake, you can always vote to get him out next time if you want, but I doubt you care.
A simple mistake from someone who will shortly be calculating how much he will be charging you for Policing in Lancashire.
A bit more advanced than counting up the milk round money.
[quote][p][bold]barryinthailand[/bold] wrote: He knew his reporting of expenses was wrong and freely admitted that, what he denied was that it was fraud. A simple mistake, you can always vote to get him out next time if you want, but I doubt you care.[/p][/quote]A simple mistake from someone who will shortly be calculating how much he will be charging you for Policing in Lancashire. A bit more advanced than counting up the milk round money. Pan-cake

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree