So to get around this, they simply decide to take no further action without DECLARING their decision to take no further action?
What about the massive surveillance database?
"published Crown Prosecution Service guidance to senior prosecutors refers to secret "Preston briefings" which they can be given if tapping evidence in a case they are prosecuting reveals that a defendant may be innocent. (The guidance also notes that the briefing may be given after exculpatory intercept evidence has been destroyed.)"
I don't believe that that the only time this surveillance database is handed to Crown Prosecution Service is to prove innocence. It sounds like a cover story, proving someone did NOT do something would require 100% surveillance of that person. If you had 50% surveillance, how do you know the other 50% is where the proof of guilt lies?
What if CPS decided to prosecute even despite these "Preston Briefings", was the Court told that evidence? If not why not? If yes, where's the court notes?
So I think that is a cover for Parallel Construction, and its used to provide evidence of guilt which is then covered with a false cover story told to the court. To hide the surveillance, just as it was done in the USA.
So 7800 biometric record you say? And how may in the massive surveillance database? That includes passport info which includes all the biometrics for most Brits. How many times has that been accessed without warrant or judicial oversight?