By LAMECH JOHNSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
ljohnson@tribunemedia.net
A JUDGE yesterday refused an attorney’s request for a stay of committal proceedings arising out of legal cost hearings that stemmed from a recusal application where the attorney accused the Supreme Court judge of bias.
However, Justice Rhonda Bain told Keod Smith she would give him until Monday, March 27, to instruct counsel concerning his alleged refusal to take an oath before the registrar concerning his financial means to pay the costs awarded the environmental group Save The Bays (STB) in December 2014. At the time, 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.
In asking for an adjournment of the proceedings yesterday, Mr Smith said he was seeking to also adopt a notice of motion recusal that had been filed by Damian Gomez, QC, on behalf of Canadian fashion-mogul Peter Nygard who has made a new bid for the judge to step aside in hearing judicial reviews concerning the alleged illegal expansion of his western New Providence property.
“I was able to view the documents filed by Damian Gomez, QC, and it has a direct impact on proceedings before you today. I’ve really tried to instruct counsel, but have been unable,” Keod Smith said.
Fred Smith, QC, lead counsel for STB, objected to the adjournment and said that the notice of motion being adopted by Keod Smith had not been served to STB.
“This is becoming a mockery of the administration of justice and the request by Mr (Keod) Smith on the basis that he’s not been able to retain counsel when throughout JR-1, he’d obtained any number of attorneys to act for him in various aspects,” STB’s lawyer said.
“It is true this is a very serious matter because we are seeking a custodial sentence for his conduct before the registrar was contemptuous but this request for an adjournment must be put in the context that Norwood Rolle is in court and robed.”
Fred Smith said the latest request and the basis undermines his previous apology in court for the affidavits filed by the former Progressive Liberal Party MP.
“It is as if Mr Keod Smith, Peter Nygard and the prime minister are tied at the hip in their serial recusal applications on this court,” STB’s lawyer stressed.
Keod Smith took strong objection to the latter assertion or the suggestion that the request was an attempt to disrupt the proceedings.
He stressed that the Constitution provided him the right to instruct counsel in matters where his liberty was at stake.
He asked the court for seven to 14 days to secure a lawyer for the mentioned hearing.
Justice Bain ultimately gave him until Monday.
Following the order to pay costs in 2014, the former Mount Moriah MP 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 confirmed the costs at $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, Keod Smith subsequently 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 November 9, 2016, stressed that Keod 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.
A week after the November 9 decision, Mr Smith sought leave from Justice Bain to appeal the order to the Court of Appeal in a notice of motion filed November 16, 2016.
His grounds for leave to appeal were that Justice Bain was wrong, in law, to exercise her discretion to extend the time for the appellant to comply with the order when there was no evidence or reason provided to the court by the respondent, STB, for failure to present a bill of costs to Mr Smith for payment within the stipulated period.
He also proposed to argue at the appellate court that Justice Bain failed to give sufficient consideration to the allegation that STB was a nominal plaintiff and the damage he would suffer for having to make the payments within the specified period.
However, a ruling dated January 12, 2017, the judge refused an attorney’s application to appeal an order for extension of time for $263,000 in legal costs to be paid.
The ruling has subsequently been affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.