AS District Crown Prosecutor responsible for prosecutions brought before the criminal courts in North Worcestershire I feel that a response on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service is appropriate to the letter Residents and Police let down (Shuttle, February 28).

I entirely understand the frustration felt by the householders of Aggborough Crescent who submitted the letter.

Burglary, whether of dwelling houses or commercial premises, is a serious offence bringing with it damage, disruption and a sense that one's home is no longer secure. The public interest will almost always require a prosecution to be pursued for the offence.

However, whilst the police may have committed significant resources to investigating burglaries in Aggborough, it is not the level of resource dedicated to an investigation but the evidence obtained as a result of it which determines whether a prosecution can be brought.

Prosecutors must be satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of obtaining a conviction before a criminal court. This test is not as high as the beyond reasonable doubt' test that the courts must apply, but it must be more likely than not that a court would convict the defendant on the evidence. Suspicion alone is not enough to justify bringing a case before the courts. The CPS does not apply a 100 per cent chance of success' test as is suggested by your correspondents.

If the evidential test is passed a prosecutor must go on to consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution.

I have personally reviewed the decision, made in consultation with the police, not to bring a prosecution against several of the individuals they arrested.

I am satisfied that the decision was correct and based upon the law, the evidence and proper application of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. I discussed the decision with officers involved in the investigation, who understood and accepted it.

Whilst the Crown Prosecution Service, in common with the police and other public bodies have performance targets to meet, those do not impact upon our ability or willingness to pursue offenders where there is sufficient evidence to support the tests contained in our code.

It would be wrong not to prosecute someone for a serious offence where the available evidence is sufficient to justify it, just as it would have been wrong to bring a prosecution without it.

DAVID ELLIOTT District Crown Prosecutor West Mercia Area Droitwich