Withdrawn charges 

The London Free press also reported that his charges were withdrawn silently. Now from the perspective of a normal criminal process, this usually means the police had a weak case. The fact that the police were gung-ho about this case may also suggest that the police had no case at all (judging by the seemingly high-profile aspect to this case). In other words, Homeontherange's addition of that information is a pretty clear sign that the information is being added in order to disparage James Scott Richardson.

What is my point of reference? Well. When I added information to Alex Kulbashian and Richard Warman about a Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint file by Alex against Richard, Homeontherange removed the information stating that the complaint could have been filed, however it wasn't serious enough to because there was no evidence the Commissioner signed off on it. Now, getting back to this case, the crown attorney and/or withdrew the charges because there was no prospect for conviction.

To Homeontherange: If you are going to have double standards in "enforcing" wikipedia's criteria for information posted in articles, then that shows your political motivation behind your edits and the way you handle your "administrative" tasks. That would be classified as Administrator Abuse Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse. Furthermore, the fact that the IP address 72.136.34.96 spontaneously lost the ability to make edits without logging in with no explanation could also show a certain level of abuse of administrative rights (by the way. Will be reporting that to Jimbo Wales). So feel free to revert the edit I've made, but make an attempt to justify your actions this time.