Acting Magistrate Michael Smith's political links did not stop him ruling fairly in the Trevor Woolridge case, a court heard yesterday.

Lawyer Saul Froomkin said it was not reasonable to assume Mr. Smith was biased because he belonged to a different party from Mr. Woolridge.

Mr. Froomkin was speaking during the first full day of argument before the Court of Appeal.

Last year, ex-Progressive Labour Party MP Mr. Woolridge had his sexual assault conviction quashed after a judge ruled that the Acting Magistrate's links with the ruling United Bermuda Party created a risk of bias.

Mr. Froomkin, QC, represents the woman who accused Mr. Woolridge of sexual assault and he has lodged an appeal against the Chief Justice Austin Ward's ruling.

And he urged that despite Bermuda's small size, a reasonable person would not think that a Magistrate would automatically be prejudiced just because he and the accused are members of different political parties.

Moreover, Mr. Froomkin said that if such matters were taken seriously, then it would be impossible for the courts and other tribunals to do their work.

Mr. Froomkin said that he believed in the ability of jurors to make decisions based solely on the facts before them without concern for such irrelevant matters.

"No reasonable person could come to the conclusion that there would be bias just because the (magistrate and the accused) were from two different parties,'' he argued.

Furthermore Mr. Froomkin said that the test was whether or not there had been a real danger of bias instead of a mere appearance of bias.

Last year a seminal plank in Chief Justice Austin Ward's ruling was that he was satisfied that the conduct of the trial was unfair to Mr. Woolridge because "there was a real possibility of injustice as regards bias.'' And Mr. Justice Ward added that -- in the context of Bermudian society -- there was a "manifest connection'' in having a member of one political party, Acting Magistrate Michael Smith, sit in judgment of another.

In his ruling the Chief Justice said:"Justice was not done, nor was it seen to be done. For these and other reasons the appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed.'' Mr. Froomkin added that if the Chief Justice was correct and there was a real finding of bias, the appropriate thing to have done was to have ordered a retrial before an "impartial Magistrate''.

Meanwhile, Mr. Froomkin said that the real issue for the court to decide was credibility.

During the trial in Magistrates' court. Mr. Smith found Mr. Woolridge's credibility wanting because he was evasive and did not answer some questions that were put to him directly.

Mr. Woolridge is a churchman who was booted from the pulpit by the ruling body of the AME Church after his conviction for groping a woman parishioner's breasts.

The Hamilton East MP quit his party to sit as an Independent after a public outcry following his conviction.

He was convicted in Magistrates' Court of sexually assaulting the woman parishioner, who cannot be named for legal reasons, at her home in September 1996.

It was found that he had exposed his private parts in the living room and grabbed the woman after she asked him to leave.

He was not sentenced pending the outcome of the appeal. Mr. Woolridge is represented by lawyer Richard Hector.

Trevor Woolridge