Angry scenes erupted outside Magistrates' Court yesterday after the case against a teacher accused of sexually assaulting a pupil was dismissed.

A heavy Police presence both in the courtroom and the street ensured relative calm was maintained although not before threats were made on the life of the teacher. Two females, one from the family of the victim and one from the family of the accused, also had to be separated.

The mother of the eight year old, whose son had accused the 33-year-old man of pulling his penis during a lesson in January, was inconsolable outside court after Acting Senior Magistrate William Francis threw the case out.

The boy's father had to be restrained following the decision, which came after five days in court during which the boy was cross-examined for more than five hours.

The teacher was held back in the court by Police officers until the room had been cleared before being whisked away by family members in a waiting vehicle.

Shouts of "you're going to die", "paedophile" and "we are going to get you" were heard as the vehicle sped away.

Defence counsel Larry Mussenden had submitted a plea of "no case to answer" and Mr. Francis announced at 12.20 p.m. yesterday that he was accepting the submission.

"The evidence of the sexual purpose is rather slight," he told the packed courtroom - Mr. Francis was later given a security escort away from the court complex.

"I find this case is weak and riddled with inconsistencies. There is no case to answer."

Mr. Mussenden had said both that there was no evidence of sexual purpose and that there were 16 inconsistencies in the prosecution case.

Although Mr. Francis said that many of the inconsistencies were of no consequence, he ruled that doubts over exactly what was said between the two after the alleged incident and how the teacher came to be seated next to the youngster did "trouble him".

He said that sexual purpose had been established, as the court heard the teacher had stroked the boy's head, but the evidence was not strong enough.

The family of the youngster, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were too upset to speak to The Royal Gazette at length although it was clear they were furious at the decision to throw the case out.

They re-affirmed their claim that the man was guilty and that that their son had not made the whole thing up, as Mr. Mussenden had suggested earlier in the trial.

It is understood that they were already upset with the legal system after their son had to repeatedly give evidence for lengthy periods in a closed courtroom and the youngster told his parents that he didn't want to go back in the courtroom.

Mr. Mussenden told The Royal Gazette afterwards that his client had no comment to make.