A top Sussex officer has responded to reports that police have been refusing to investigate some lower-priority crimes.

The headlines hit home and hurt: "Police brushed me off, says car victim" and "Crime but no punishment."

Disgruntled victims complained that police had refused to investigate crimes.

They received letters explaining that the force would not be pursuing an inquiry into their incidents.

One said: "This may be disappointing for you but I would encourage you to seek alternative means to resolve this matter to your satisfaction."

The perception was that police didn't care or couldn't be bothered. Chief Superintendent Doug Rattray says nothing could be further from the truth.

He declared: "We do care, we always have cared and we will continue to care.

"Our staff are hard-working and sympathetic to all victims of crime."

Every report, he said, was investigated but finite resources meant police had to focus first on serious crimes and those less-serious crimes they were more likely to solve.

All crimes were looked into but there were times when full inquiries were not immediately possible.

He used a hit-and-run crash as an example.

If police found there were no witnesses to the collision, no forensic or other clues to the offender, the crime would be put on the back-burner.

Registration numbers or an exchange of details could help but police sometimes found the offender had been in a stolen car, the vehicle had not been registered for years and the driver had given false information.

Police could spend weeks in a fruitless attempt to trace him when those resources applied elsewhere would catch culprits.

Where there was a likelihood of catching the offender, where he had left fingerprints, DNA evidence, or where there was CCTV footage or witnesses, every effort was made to bring them to justice.

Police in every division in every force in Britain are constantly juggling limited budgets and staff.

Officers are forever asking whether they should sink money, resources and time into investigating a crime they know they are unlikely to solve when there are many other, more serious crimes they can tackle with a positive outcome.

Mr Rattray said the problem for police had been conveying that to the public.

He acknowledged letters sent to victims could be misleading and would be rewritten.

Mr Rattray explained: "If we receive two calls, one to a burglary where a victim is about to be attacked and the other to a woman worried by a group of youths outside her home, it does not mean we will not attend both.

"But if we are busy, it does mean the burglary victim will be seen first. It is an emergency whereas the resident's concerns can be dealt with and followed up later.

"Sometimes the official language we use in letters to crime victims does not put over that message fully and I accept the standard letters do not necessarily properly reflect what our policy is.

"The new letters will make reference to the specific crime and deal with the reality rather than the standardised letter which talks more about government guidelines.

"We understand why people won't accept the 'don't care' impression given by what is a public service and I want to reassure them that is not what we think or feel."

He pointed to crime figures as an example of how much police do care.

Investigations and initiatives have helped reduce the number of crimes overall to their lowest point since 1999.

Totals late last year were more than 2,000 per month compared to more than 3,000 in 1999.

The biggest fall was in car crime, down to 300 a month compared with 700. Burglaries dropped below 150 compared with 280 but violent crime rose slightly to 400 incidents.

But Mr Rattray said police were not complacent and there were more plans to improve crime-fighting and tackle quality-of-life issues.

In the meantime, he intends improving the language police use when writing to victims.