But that isn't what the archiving report says.... And as Carana has said... How can a civil court which has not heard the evidence overule a criminal investigation that has
The SC might, if it was competent to review legal arguments and rulings in both civil and criminal cases (although I havent't checked whether that's the case or not).
However, for some reason, it does appear (to me) that one paragraph had been taken in isolation, and which was unlikely to have altered the course of the investigation in any case. If it HAD been vital, there was nothing to stop the authorities from slapping arguido status on the lot of them and dragging them all back to check on the neurological perceptions of the sound of flip-flops to two males engaged in banter to the tune of x decibels.
What I find more curious is the assumption that the prosecutors hadn't actually weighed up the totality of the considerations and didn't know what they were doing when they opted for that archival clause. A bit of an insult, in this case, IMO, and in a case in which the courts kept emphasising that the criminal case was beyond their remit.
Something's not computing for me at the moment.