The commitment of local authorities to protecting women has been slammed after the recent acquittal of man who was accused of violating the privacy of a number of women.

The 20-year-old Sandys man ? who cannot be named for legal reasons ? was accused of four charges of invading the privacy of a woman and causing the woman insult, alarm or offence.

In September, 17 women went to the Police with complaints that a young man was attempting to lure lone women to secluded areas by fraudulently claiming that their vehicle had a leak or had flat tyres.

The accused was arrested on September 19 and his trial was quickly brought before the courts.

Over the course of the magistrates? Court trial the court heard from three women who had correctly identified the man in an identity parade.

The women all had similar stories ? the young man approached each separately, and told told them that there was something wrong with their car or bike. Once the women stopped, he allegedly asked them to come to another area, such as the Purvis Primary School parking lot or Fort Scaur, so he could check the vehicle out.

Two of the women said he touched them on their leg before they fled.

But at the end of the trial, Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner said the Crown had not made an argument that each charge had similar facts and that the matter should be judged on a ?similar fact basis?, thus he had to consider each case individually and look at the facts separately instead of together.

After acquitting, he told the court ?there may have been a completely different outcome? had the Crown used the ?similar facts? argument.

Penny Dill, the executive director of the Women?s Resource Centre, said the court decision was yet another example of the system in Bermuda failing women.

?This case only heightens the problems that we face in protecting women in Bermuda,? she said. ?This was a case where the perpetrator was brought before the courts very quickly by Police only to have the case dismissed due to the way it was presented by the Department of Public Prosecution.?

Mrs. Dill said the outcome was frustrating for both Police and the women who testified or came forward.

And she also questioned the fact that the accused perpetrator was not named in the media, saying it reflected the lack of importance placed on preventing crimes against women.

?Had this been a drug case, even if it was a not guilty verdict, the accused would still have their name mentioned,? she said. ?What message does this send to the community? That crimes against women don?t warrant the same attention and sensitivity as other crimes?? Editor Bill Zuill said the reason the accused man was not identified in this case was because the charge against him ? intruding on the privacy of a woman ? is one of the offences under the Criminal Code, as amended in 1993, where the media is barred from identifying the alleged victim at any time and can only identify the accused on conviction.

This is not a law that the newspaper supports, however, he added.

? has had a longstanding objection to the identification restriction for the very reasons that Miss Dill states,? Mr. Zuill said.

?The range of offences covered by the restriction is extraordinarily broad, covering both sexual offences and ?offences against morality?. At the very least, we would like to see some of the less serious offences removed from the list.?