NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Supreme Court has ordered an attorney to pay $55,000 in fines and costs by the end of next month for contempt of court.
According to the ruling, Attorney Donna Dorsett-Major, who the court noted has an unblemished criminal record, “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”.
She was ordered to pay costs of $20,000 and a fine of $35,000 before January 31, 2022.
Dorsett-Major was the third defendant in a civil action where she was sued by the plaintiffs and found guilty of professional negligence.
Justice Indra Charles president over the matter.
Assistant Director of Legal Affairs Kayla Green-Smith appeared on behalf of the attorney general at the invitation of the court.
The ruling read: “Unhappy with the judgment, in addition to appealing it, she set out to scandalize the court by seeking my recusal in dealing with the assessment of damages and cost 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 [another] judge of the Supreme Court.
“She also filed an application in the Court of Appeal to stay these contempt proceedings without seeking leave of this court, as is required by the law.
“In other words, she was saddling other judges and even the Court of Appeal with matters which were before this court.
“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, as noted by the Court of Appeal in the case of James Fleck v Pittstown Point Landings Limited…”
Attorney Murrio Ducille, who represented Dorsett-Major, called three character witnesses to attest to her unblemished character.
The court heard that she is trustworthy and efficient; apologetic and remorseful; and a very straightforward and honest person.
But the judge said if Dorsett-Major was remorseful and apologetic, she could have apologized herself, but instead she “always maintained that the contents of her affidavit are true and correct”.
The court said it is on that basis that it must reject the evidence coming from the character witnesses relative to Dorsett-Major’s contrition.
The judge added: “In addition, I did not find Mrs Major to be an honest person.”
According to the ruling, Ducille, in his “concise and persuasive submissions”, implored the court to be lenient and noted that Dorsett-Major accepted the conviction of guilt.
However, Green-Smith submitted that the matter was serious and impacted the administration of justice.
Dorsett-Major was found guilty of contempt of court.
