PLP MP Trevor Eugene Woolridge bowed his head, closed his eyes and whispered a silent prayer after an acting Magistrate pronounced him guilty of exposing himself to a female parishioner and grabbing her breasts.

On Monday morning he will be sentenced on one charge of sexual assault which carries a maximum term of five years in prison for a lower court conviction.

A hush descended on the packed courtroom as Acting Magistrate Michael Smith emerged from his chambers at 4.10 p.m. yesterday to pronounce the verdict.

Rev. Woolridge, 41, rose to his feet and as he made his way to the prisoner's dock he mumbled an inaudible prayer.

Mr. Smith said that he accepted both lawyers' submissions that credibility was the premier issue in the case.

Moreover, he said that on the complainant's version of the facts, Rev.

Woolridge exposed himself to her and put his hands on her breasts.

Conversely, he said that Rev. Woolridge, who represents Hamilton Parish East, testified that this never occurred because he went to the woman's home to deliver a grocery voucher and promptly left.

"I have found (the complainant) to be credible and forthright,'' Mr. Smith said reading from his written judgment.

"Rev. Woolridge was also credible and forthright but during the cross examination he became evasive and refused to hear things on the tape that were clear to everyone else.

"He refused to hear his own voice and was unable to give a convincing explanation...the defendant's credibility (during the cross examination) was found wanting.'' Consequently, Mr. Smith said that the prosecution had discharged their duty and had proved their case.

On hearing that he had been found guilty, Rev. Woolridge, pastor at the Mount Zion AME Church in Southampton, sat and stared at the floor in stunned disbelief.

In an unusual twist to the case, Rev. Woolridge was neither released on bail nor was he remanded in custody after the verdict was announced.

His lawyer Marc Telemaque issued a terse "no comment'' when he was approached by a Royal Gazette reporter and asked if there were any plans to appeal the court's verdict.

Earlier in the trial, Mr. Telemaque spoke for 50 minutes and he attacked the integrity of the prosecution's main witness -- the complainant.

He said: "The complainant is not a person on whom this court can rely. She has simply not told the truth.'' Mr. Telemaque said that the substance of her complaint was that Rev. Woolridge exposed himself and touched her breasts when he visited her home on September 20, 1996.

Moreover he pointed out that the complainant's allegation that Rev. Woolridge exposed himself was not the proper focus of the sexual assault charges.

Instead he said the real subject of the charges was the allegation that Rev.

Woolridge grabbed her breasts.

Mr. Telemaque said it was doubtful whether Rev. Woolridge could have managed to grab the complainant's breasts while simultaneously holding an envelope in one hand.

"She never told us how the defendant was able to do what she said he did when he was holding an envelope,'' Mr. Telemaque said.

"If this is the basis of the complaint, then this is where the prosecution is weak.'' Mr. Telemaque said that the complainant gave a different version of these alleged facts to the Police in an interview and in a letter to the accused.

And he said the audio tape on which the prosecution based much of its case was "the greatest red herring in the entire case,'' because the sole issue was whether Rev. Woolridge sexually assaulted the woman on September 20, 1996.

Mr. Telemaque said that the point of the tape, according to the complainant, was to get Rev. Woolridge to admit that he had sexually assaulted her but she never brought the issue up during the ride to the Airport four days after the alleged assault.

And the reason why she did not bring the issue up, Mr. Telemaque asserted, was because the alleged assault never took place.

However, lawyer Saul Froomkin on behalf of the complainant, said that the tape was an important feature of their case because it demonstrated that Rev.

Woolridge and the woman did not have the normal kind of conversation expected of two people on their way to an overseas trip.

Mr. Froomkin said that even though Rev. Woolridge claimed that the trip was intended to help the woman find a job in Philadelphia, there was never any conversation about that.

Instead the conversation as recorded on the tape, showed that they spoke "about three days of sex'' which made no rational sense unless the sexual assault had taken place earlier.

"Why would she, knowing that nothing happened, take a tape recorder to tape something that never happened?'' Mr. Froomkin asked rhetorically.

"There is no rational answer to why she taped that conversation other than her evidence that no one would have believed her given Rev. Woolridge's position.'' Mr. Froomkin said that the complainant had no motive and reaped no benefit from making up the entire episode.

Instead he said she gave specific details about the accused, including details of his penis size and its complexion as well as his odd toe nails.

GUILTY -- Rev. Trevor Eugene Woolridge was found guilty yesterday of one charge of sexual assault.