Quote:
From the link supplied by Incog
We do decide if there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction (effectively, whether a jury, properly directed, would be more likely than not to convict), but whether or not the law has been broken is a matter for courts and juries to decide – not the CPS. In this case, there is currently insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction
|
So the CPS are not saying that BT didn't act illegally, more that the CPS can't make that decision, and that the CPS did not find enough evidence that they did (which isn't the same as not acting illegally at all).