The Crown is to investigate after a magistrate wrote off 11 fines worth $3,250 that had gone unpaid by one man for more than four years.

Senior Crown counsel Peter Eccles said the Director of Public Prosecutions would look at why the 37-year-old man, who had accumulated the fines since June 1995, was treated so leniently by Bermuda Magistrates' Court yesterday.

Mr Eccles said: "This is extremely rare and not something that is normally done and not something we would encourage.

"It defeats the purpose of giving fines. It gives people an incentive to come up with the hard luck story. We will be looking into it.

"I don't know if he (the magistrate) has the authority to do this.'' Orris Austin Baker, 37, left Magistrates' Court a happy man yesterday morning after Magistrate Edward King waived the fines, saying it was obvious he could not pay.

Mr. Baker of Cottage Hill, Hamilton, was in court for failing to pay the fines.

He said he had intended to pay, but the fines had "slipped his mind''.

The court heard how Mr. Baker received just under $600 a month in disability allowance and had not been in a position to pay, but hoped to earn extra cash by hustling for work.

Mr King said under Section 33 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, he was able to write off the fines.

He said: "It's my opinion that you are not in a position to pay this money.

"A fellow who is hustling cannot guarantee that he's going to make anything.

You have rent to pay.

"I excuse you from paying the total sum of $3,250. I'm saying you don't have to pay. The magistrate may excuse full or part payment. In respect of this, I have wiped your slate clean.'' As the defendant thanked Mr. King for his leniency, people in the court gasped in surprise and one woman shouted to the magistrate: "He should clean your car.'' To which Mr King replied: "No, because then they will say that he bribed me.'' Mr. Eccles added: "If Magistrate King decided that this is what he wanted to do, then so be it. It may be that he thought locking him up for the default was not going to serve anyone's interests. But that would be something we would take a look at.

"But this is not something we would encourage and it's not something we want to become the standard approach.'' However, he said it may be that even if the DPP was unhappy with the way the case was handled, there may be little that can be done.

He added: "We could appeal the decision, but there is not a lot the Court of Appeal can do.

"It has to be a clear error of law and not that we just do not like the decision. It has to be clearly wrong.''