and churchman Trevor Woolridge was having an affair with the woman parishioner who accused him of the crime, Chief Justice Austin Ward said yesterday.

But he added Rev. Woolridge was not being tried for alleged adultery with the woman but on a sexual assault charge and that the tape should never have been produced in evidence.

The tape, allowed as evidence in a Magistrates Court trial, was alleged to have been recorded as Rev. Woolridge drove the woman to the airport for a trip to the US.

It was made, prosecution QC Saul Froomkin claimed, in a bid to trap Rev.

Woolridge into admitting the sex assault.

Mr. Justice Ward said: "However, she did not raise the issue of what had happened....and the defendant didn't raise the issue either.'' In the original judgement, Acting Magistrate Michael Smith said he had found both witnesses credible -- but added Rev. Woolridge had become "evasive'' during cross-examination over the tape.

But Mr. Justice Ward said: "There are many other reasons other than guilt of the offence charged that an ordained Minister would not want it to become public knowledge that he was subject to some of the same human frailties as other mortals.

"The conclusion that evasiveness in that area is proof of guilt of the offence charged is unsupportable.'' "Clearly in those circumstances, the conversation on the tape had nothing to do with the offence charged and could not be probative of it and the tape was not admissible for that purpose.'' He added: "It was designed to show that a Minister of religion was planning an adulterous liaison with a regular visitor to his church.'' Mr. Justice Ward was speaking as he delivered his written judgement after last month allowing Rev. Woolridge's appeal against the Magistrates' Court conviction.

It was alleged Rev. Woolridge exposed himself to the woman and grabbed her breasts at her Pembroke home in September last year. He was convicted, but not sentenced, in October. He later resigned from the PLP to represent his Hamilton East constituency as an Independent.

Mr. Justice Ward said that it had been argued the tape recording was brought as evidence to "test the credibility'' of Rev. Woolridge.

But he pointed out that there were differences in statements made by the woman prior to the case coming to court and those made in evidence.

He added a tape was admissible if accuracy can be proved, the voices are properly identified and the evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible.

But he said no expert evidence was brought to prove who the voices were and there was no admission of guilt on the tape by Rev. Woolridge.

Mr. Justice Ward insisted: "The Acting Magistrate could not lawfully be the judge and a witness in the same trial, which is what he did when he concluded, without independent evidence, that a voice on the tape was that of a defendant.'' He added that Mr. Smith should also have disqualified himself from the case.

The Chief Justice said that the then-counsel for Rev. Woolridge, Marc Telemaque, asked Mr. Smith to debar himself from the bench in August on the grounds that he was a United Bermuda Party member and approved candidate.

He added that Mr. Smith had referred to the judicial oath and his intention to uphold it and that counsel for the prosecution, Saul Froomkin QC had insisted that the case was one of sexual assault and had nothing to do with "the political orientation of the tribunal.'' But Mr. Justice Ward said: "With respect, that is a simplistic view. The allegation was of a sexual assault, the consequences of any finding against the appellant based on the allegation are of a grave political nature.

"Magistrates, as people of the world who bring their worldly wisdom and knowledge of human nature to the performance of their tasks, cannot and should not bury their heads in the sand or hide them in the clouds.

"The learned Acting Magistrate would have known that, depending on the result of the trial before him, the political future of the appellant could have been at risk as he could have been disqualified from holding his seat in the House of Assembly....'' Quoting legal precedent, Mr. Justice Ward said: "I would add that the mental state of denial does not free oneself from the disease of bias. The man who says he has no prejudice, like the man who says he has no sin, deceives himself.'' He added: "In the present climate of opinion in Bermuda, the learned Acting Magistrate, as an approved candidate for the governing party, had a vested interest in excluding the appellant from the exercise of that power, which is the raison d'etre of politics.