Magistrate Cheryl-Ann Mapp yesterday he only admitted the crime because he believed Police would release him on bail.

Taking the stand in his own defence the 26-year-old man, who cannot be named, told the court he made three statements to Police following his arrest on the morning of April 7 1995, and had initially denied the charge.

The accused, who at the time was advised to say nothing by his lawyer Richard Hector, told Police he needed to be released that day in order to finish a private contracting job on time.

But, the defendant testified, Det. Inspector Stuart Crockwell told him his first statement was not good enough and if he co-operated he would be bailed.

"He told me he didn't think I'd be doing that job by the weekend unless I co-operated with him. I told him I had given a statement but he said: `No no; that's not good enough','' court was told.

The charge was laid following an April 6, 1995 incident when a Police surveillance team observed a man walk up a driveway on Government Hill in St.

George's, remove his clothes and stand at a window of St. Peter's Church rectory and masturbate.

The man was subsequently alerted to the Police team and ran off across St.

George's Golf Course leaving his sneakers and clothes behind.

In his second statement and later in a question-and-answer session, the accused was asked to explain his actions and replied: "I don't know.

Stupidity I guess.'' When pressed on what his intent was he told officers: "Probably masturbate then go home.'' Defence lawyer Richard Hector contended the confession was obtained improperly because the accused was told if he did not co-operate, senior Police inspectors would be left "to fill in the blanks'' and could charge him with a more serious offence, such as housebreaking or rape.

Representing the Crown, Sgt. Rex Osborne argued the accused twice ignored the advice of his lawyer and volunteered the information freely.

And in earlier testimony Det. Insp. Crockwell rejected Mr. Hector's allegations that his client was coerced into making a false statement with a promise of bail.

In his summation, Mr. Hector continued to press the point.

Between the taking of the first and second statements Det. Insp. Crockwell was alone with the accused for about 15 minutes, he argued, and it was at that point the accused was alternately threatened with the prospect of more serious charges and led by false promises into giving his second statement.

How else could the defendant have known that after 8 p.m. anyone caught lurking outside another house could be charged in Supreme Court with housebreaking or perhaps attempted rape? "The only evidence this court needs to concern itself with is statements two and three. There is really no other evidence against this defendant,'' he said.

Magistrate Cheryl-Ann Mapp will hand down her judgment on September 17.