A 20-year-old Sandys man was acquitted of four charges of intruding upon the privacy and causing alarm, insult or offence to a number of women.

Evidence for one of the charges was not read into record because one woman is studying in Paris and Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner said it was not a good enough excuse, citing that he had made this court date because the Department of Public Prosecution assured him all witnesses were available.

Police received a number of complaints in September that a black male was attempting to lure women into secluded areas by claiming that their vehicles were leaking or had a flat tyres.

Seventeen women made complaints to the Police about the man but only four charges were brought against him.

During the case the court heard that the man approached each woman separately and told them that there was something wrong with their car or bike. Once the women stopped they alleged the man asked them to come to another area, such as Purvis Primary School parking lot or Fort Scaur, so he could check the vehicle out.

Two of the women alleged he touched them on their leg. Another witness was told her her ?pants aren?t working? after he asked her to bounce up and down in her car to check if the tyres were properly inflated.

The young man is currently studying for his associates degree in motor technology at the Bermuda College. He told the court that he was simply trying to assist the women. He also said: ?If I knew it was a crime to help someone I would never have done it.?

The prosecution had to prove that he alarmed, insulted or offended the women and that he meant to do it.

Mr. Warner found him not guilty on all four counts because he was not convinced that the young man meant to cause alarm.

He also told the court that he had not heard Crown counsel Shakira Dill make a similar evidence argument for the four charges and thus he had to examine each charge separately instead of examining the evidence of all the charges together.

Moreover, he told the court that if the Crown had used the argument that the charges had similar facts ?there may have been a completely different outcome?.