The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

A Bahamian lawyer was fined $35,000 and ordered to pay an additional $20,000 in legal costs after she was found guilty of contempt of court.

Justice Indra H Charles handed down her ruling to Donna Dorsett-Major who she said “knowingly and intentionally fabricated the contents of her affidavit with the objective of demeaning the judge and bringing the court into disrepute and prejudice the due administration of justice”.

 Mrs Dorsett-Major was told she has until the end of next month to pay the fine and costs.

 According to the written ruling dated December 20, Mrs Dorsett-Major’s contempt citation stemmed from a civil case surrounding a property dispute where she was found guilty of professional negligence.

 Justice Charles had presided over the civil case.

 “In the civil action, Mrs Major was the third defendant and she was sued by the plaintiffs for professional negligence. She was found guilty of professional negligence,” the judge said.

 “Unhappy with the judgment, in addition to appealing it, she set out to scandalise the court by seeking my recusal in dealing with the assessment of damages and costs in the professional negligence claim.

 “Instead of this court proceeding to deal with the contempt of court expeditiously and fairly as the law requires, Mrs Major promptly instituted a constitutional motion in the Supreme Court… against the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General seeking, among other things, an order transferring the contempt proceedings to (an)other judge of the Supreme Court. “

 Justice Charles further noted that Mrs Dorsett-Major filed an application in the Court of Appeal to stay the contempt proceedings without first seeking leave of her court, which she said she was required to do by law.

 “In other words, she was saddling other judges, and even the Court of Appeal with matters which were before this court,” she said. “These proceedings dragged on for over a year. The law is clear that, given the nature of contempt proceedings, it is critical that the court moves expeditiously to hear these matters and ensure that there is a fair hearing.”

 Justice Charles said during the proceedings, three character witnesses testified about Mrs Dorsett-Major’s “unblemished character”.

 However, their evidence relating to Mrs Dorsett-Major’s contrition was rejected after Justice Charles concluded she did not find Mrs Dorsett-Major remorseful for several reasons.

 The judge said: “…If Mrs Major was indeed remorseful and apologetic, she could have done so herself. She remained adamant to do so and always maintained that the contents of her affidavit are true and correct. It is, therefore, on that basis that the court must reject all evidence coming from her character witnesses relative to her contrition. In addition, I did not find Mrs Major to be an honest person.”

 Justice Charles also said even though the evidence was “glaringly” against Mrs Dorsett-Major, she continued in her efforts to scandalise the court.

 “The court considers fabrication of allegations and scandalising the court, particularly when it is committed by a practising attorney-at-law against a judicial officer, to be an affront to the administration of justice,” the ruling added.

“The court must therefore rise to protect itself and send out a strong message that such behaviour cannot be tolerated.”

 As a result, Mrs Dorsett-Major was ordered to pay a $35,000 fine by the end of next month. Failure to do so would result in her spending 90 days in prison.

 She was also ordered to pay $20,000 in legal costs to Assistant Director of Legal Affairs Kayla Green-Smith, who appeared as a friend of the court on behalf of the Attorney General.