A couple face another wait as the inquiry into their charity work is reviewed by prosecutors.
This week, Dawn and Ian McManus were told by Cleveland Police the “thorough investigation” into their involvement in Red Dreams had been closed after 17 months.
Officers shut the probe after sending a file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), but say they would respond if new lines of inquiry come to light.
Now the CPS has confirmed to the Mail a review has been launched after those behind the claims - believed to centre around its accounts and funds - exercised an option to request the file is looked at by another prosecutor, which could take four weeks to complete.
Dawn, 47, and Ian, 48, say they have been “fully vindicated” but that the appeal was expected, with both happy to assist the CPS.
Dawn said: “Obviously it is their right to appeal and that’s the law.
I’m not going to let this break that feeling for me now after coming out of 17 months of hell.Dawn McManus
“We have been overwhelmed with the support from people since they saw the story the other day.
“I’m not going to let this break that feeling for me now after coming out of 17 months of hell.”
The couple, who say the probe forced them to move out of the town, set up Red Dreams after the death of their 16-year-old son 11 years ago and recently launched a new organisation to support young musicians and singers.
Dawn added: “We have Kyle’s Dream going forward and it’s onwards and upwards with that.”
A CPS spokesman said: “In all cases, prosecutors must assess whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and also whether it is in the public interest to do so.
“Having carefully reviewed the material submitted by police in this case, the CPS has decided that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute.
“A decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.
“The complainant has been informed and provided with a full explanation in writing.
“However, we have since received a request for a review of that charging decision under the Victims’ Right to Review scheme, which will be conducted by a prosecutor with no previous involvement in the case.”