I know of two people who were involved in the theft of property. One carried out said theft (A) which involved causing damage in order to steal. The other one acted as lookout (B). This case is ongoing and I can't be too specific so please stick with the generalisations, if possible, and take what is said at face value. (A) was arrested at home and taken to police station where he made a full confession and took the police to where he had hidden the stolen items. He also implicated B as the lookout. He made a full and complete confession which was backed up by CCTV evidence. (B) was arrested and took the 'prove it copper, you've nothing on me' route. He denied all but failed to be convincing in his arguments that he was innocent. The CPS has decided that it probably wouldn't gain a conviction against (B) because although he is implicated by (A) all the rest of the evidence is circumstantial. They have therefore decided to drop both cases. What price justice? What is the point of having a police service who thoroughly investigate a crime and gain confessions backed up by clear cctv evidence only to be let down by the CPS? Justice has not been served.