The sex assault case against disgraced MP and pastor Trevor Woolridge boiled down to a balancing act between his credibility and that of the woman parishioner who accused him, a court heard yesterday.

And Saul Froomkin QC, appearing for the woman at Woolridge's appeal in Supreme Court, said the ex-Progressive Labour Party Shadow Minister had destroyed his credibility by lying during the original private prosecution.

But Richard Hector QC, appearing for Woolridge, countered that the trial judge, Acting Magistrate Michael Smith, was a United Bermuda Party big wheel and there was "a real possibility and danger'' of bias against a PLP MP defendant.

And he said a tape recording found by Magistrates' Court to be a conversation of a sexual nature between Woolridge and woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, should not have been admitted as evidence. Woolridge, who pleaded not guilty, was convicted last month of sexually assaulting the woman by grabbing her breasts at her home last year.

It was found he committed the offence when he delivered air tickets and grocery vouchers to the woman on September 20, 1996.

Magistrates' Court heard that the woman had walked into her living room to find Woolridge sitting with his private parts exposed and holding an envelope.

The assault was found to have taken place when she asked him to leave.

Mr. Froomkin told Chief Justice Austin Ward yesterday: "The defendant perjured himself on more than one occasion and that is clear from the record.'' He said that Woolridge denied the sexual content of conversations with the woman on a drive to the airport. But he said a tape of the conversation was later played in court and it was "audible to everyone in the courtroom except the defendant, who denied hearing it when everyone else could.'' And Mr. Froomkin said: "It goes to credibility -- credibility was the only issue which was before the court.'' But Mr. Justice Ward said: "The mere fact that someone lies about something which is peripheral is not proof that he is lying about everything else.'' Earlier, Mr. Hector listed ten points as the basis of the appeal against Woolridge's conviction -- including a last minute addition of the risk of bias on the part of Mr. Smith.

Mr. Justice Ward allowed the addition over objections by Mr. Froomkin that it was "not just or expedient.'' Mr. Hector said: "I understand that Mr. Smith can stand for election under the banner of the United Bermuda Party. I take that to mean he is qualified to become a Member of Parliament by putting himself up for election.'' He added that in a Country as small as Bermuda, even a one seat shift could be fatal to one of the major parties or the other. And he said: "Whether the learned Magistrate had it in his mind or not, there was a real danger and possibility of bias. It's like prejudice -- it's insidious and dangerous.'' Mr. Hector said that the tape recording made by the woman was "irrelevant'' to the case because it did not contain any admission of guilt to the charge.

He added: "I can't imagine why that tape was played ad nauseum, obviously influencing the learned Magistrate.'' Mr. Hector added: "The Magistrate should have insisted that something be done to establish the authenticity of the tape, to sanitise it and avoid all these problems.'' And he claimed some aspects of the woman's evidence did not make sense. Mr.

Hector said that the woman said she secretly taped the conversation in the car in a bid to get evidence of a sexual assault on her.

But he added: "She sets out to achieve something, she drives a long way to get to the airport and she does not raise this matter. The question has to be asked `did it happen at all?' '' Mr. Hector also argued that the Magistrate should have allowed an adjournment after lawyer Archie Warner submitted an affidavit saying he had information concerning the case. He said: "In a case of such seriousness and public interest, an adjournment should have been allowed.'' But Mr. Froomkin said there had been no objection over the authenticity or originality of the tape during the trial.

Mr. Froomkin also asked why the woman would lie when there was no obvious benefit and no motive.

He said the woman had also taken a huge risk in describing Woolridge's genitals and toenails, said to be unusual, if she had never seen them and laid herself open to being caught out. But Mr. Froomkin added: "If someone can come up with another explanation which makes sense, other than it's true, I'd like to hear it.'' And he said: "If she was not telling the truth, there is no rational explanation why she would take and secrete a tape recorder on her. Mr.

Froomkin added the woman's story was "so preposterous'' it had to be true.

The hearing continues.

Trevor Woolridge