The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEY Keod Smith has been given an extra month to pay $263,000 in legal costs that stemmed from a recusal application where he accused a Supreme Court judge of bias.

Justice Rhonda Bain had been asked by environmental group Save The Bays (STB) to give Mr Smith additional time to pay the costs awarded to them in December 2014 when the judge had found the lawyer guilty of contempt for the “scandalising” affidavits he had filed which undermined the integrity of the judge and the judicial system.

Mr Smith had been given a 10-week deadline that ended on February 1, 2015. The ruling on costs was never appealed.

On April 20, 2016, the registrar amounted the costs to $263,500 from the day the order was made by Justice Bain and a certificate of taxation verified the same and authorised an extension.

However, last month Mr Smith sought an injunction against the effect of the order citing prejudice.

He filed an affidavit arguing that he should not be made to pay funds to a nominal plaintiff whose company had no known assets and would not be in a position to refund costs paid to them if the court later ruled he was not a proper party to the proceedings.

He also alleged he would suffer damage to his professional reputation.

Justice Bain, in a ruling handed down yesterday, stressed that Mr Smith had not appealed the order for costs and had, in fact, participated in the taxing of the costs, and “is not able at this stage to object to the order for costs.”

The court ruled that Mr Smith would pay the costs on/or before December 12, 2016.

Justice Bain is presiding over the judicial review filed by the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay which is challenging an application by Peter Nygard to further develop his premises in Lyford Cay and gain a lease for Crown land reclaimed from the sea.

Fred Smith, lead counsel for the environmental group, alleges that over the last 30 years, Nygard Cay has nearly doubled in size as a result of construction work undertaken without the appropriate permits and in a manner that had caused significant damage to the surrounding environment of Clifton Bay.

In January 2014, Keod Smith filed a series of affidavits claiming that Justice Bain should recuse herself from a judicial review proceeding as she had allegedly made a series of decisions based on her affiliation with the Free National Movement.

Ten months later, Keod Smith withdrew the application for the recusal, notwithstanding a section of an affidavit filed in January entitled “Justice Bain, who is she?”

He alleged the judge once worked under former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, that she was appointed to a high-ranking position in the Attorney General’s Office because of her ties to the FNM and that her two sons were fathered by a person he claimed is a close friend and advisor to Mr Ingraham.

Keod Smith also claimed that Justice Bain had made several rulings in favour of Fred Smith, who in the past had been affiliated with the FNM, which “can only be explained as coming about as a result of her bias.”

Justice Bain, in December 2014, found Keod Smith guilty of contempt for the “scandalising” affidavits he had filed which undermined the integrity of the judge and the judicial system. His then lawyer, Mr Ryan, was also informed that he “cannot escape liability” for the affidavits.

At a contempt hearing a month later, Mr Lockhart appeared for Keod Smith, a former Progressive Liberal Party MP, and expressed his reservations about the proceedings and argued that the court had already arrived at a decision without first considering any evidence to refute the pair of contempt.

The judge ruled, after a hearing in March 2015, that the court would proceed with notice against the attorney to show cause why he should not be committed to prison.

However, the judge stayed contempt proceedings pending the outcome of Keod Smith’s application before the Court of Appeal.

In January of this year, Mr Lockhart was unable to convince appellate court judges that his client’s appeal was not premature and Mr Smith’s appeal was dismissed.