A Magistrate ruled there was no case to answer yesterday in the trial of a 48-year-old lawyer who was charged with masturbating in a public place.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had pleaded not guilty to indecent exposure, prowling and masturbating in a public place, a housing complex in Paget. Magistrate William Francis dismissed the case for many reasons.

?The witness only saw him for a fleeting second and was probably more focused on what the man was doing rather than what he was wearing or what he looked like,? Mr. Francis said yesterday.

?He (the witness) had said the only difference between the prowler and the accused was that he was not naked and now had on shorts. He could not specify whether the sandals were the same sandals or whether the shirt was the same. ?After the witness had run after the accused, he ran back to his house and called 911. My question is, was it the same man that he saw on South Road??

Mr. Francis added that the prowler was not known to Mr. Clarke.

During the trial Crown counsel Oonagh Vaucrossen had argued that a few seconds was sufficient for identification. But lawyer Mark Pettingill disagreed and said Mr. Clarke could not have made a positive identification in the few seconds that he had seen him.