There was enough proof to convict former United Bermuda Party Senator Llewellyn Peniston despite some tainted evidence, the Court of Appeal heard.

Crown counsel Peter Eccles yesterday argued that there was enough basis for the conviction of Peniston on charges of perjury and concealing property to remain.

Peniston was convicted of three counts of perjury and one of concealing property.

The case surrounded statements he made at a bankruptcy hearing in 1994, after owing nearly $1 million.

Mr. Eccles said the evidence supported the guilty verdicts and there was no miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal -- Judge Alan Huggins, Judge Edward Zacca and President Sir James Astwood -- will give their judgment in the coming weeks.

The two-day appeal argued over convictions for perjury on statements made at a bankruptcy hearing, and not declaring the proceeds from a jewellery sale.

A jury convicted Peniston last October and Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux sentenced him to up to six months imprisonment. He was freed on $1,000 bail pending the appeal.

Yesterday, Mr. Eccles said Peniston made false statements and knew them to be false when he made them.

He said Mr. Peniston's former wife said she did not receive anything other than timeshare holdings. She had no idea how much the policies were worth but signed a document so the main beneficiary would be their son.

And he added that the perjury related to Peniston lying about having paid his ex-wife $25,000, but she allowed him to use the money for his education. She was not aware how much cash there was.

Evidence sufficient to convict In a letter signed by Peniston, explaining what had happened to the money, it stated that it was paid to Mrs. Peniston.

"Peniston in court gave evidence relying upon these documents,'' Mr. Eccles said.

And with regard to the $475 from the sale of gold jewellery, he said the evidence showed that he had taken the jewellery to Astwood and Dickinson for valuation and sale, not cleaning and valuation.

That was confirmed by receipts and cheques, he said.

Richard Hector, for Peniston, argued that there had to be intent for Peniston not to declare the proceeds from the jewellery.

But, he added, he was not aware at the bankruptcy hearing that he had to declare any funds over $300 and even officials were unaware of the actual amount for declaration.

Earlier, Mr. Hector had argued that the trial judge had erred in admitting notes taken prior to the trial, which Peniston had not seen.