Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn has expressed concern that public discourse about fraud-hit Stocks and Securities Limited (SSL) may jeopardize the court case involving accused former employee Jean Ann Panton.

The concern is reportedly shared by defense lawyers representing Panton.

Persons are being urged to be judicious in their utterances, failing which the lawyers or the court may have to take steps to safeguard the fairness of the process.

In a statement today, DPP Llewellyn outlined that Panton is before the Home Circuit Court on an indictment with 22 counts pertaining to allegations of falsification of accounts, forgery, uttering forged documents, larceny by a servant, offenses under the Cyber Crimes Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act.

The prosecution has so far disclosed to the defense the indictment and all the documentary material and statements of witnesses it intends to rely on in the prosecution of the matter.

The matter is to return to the Home Circuit Court on March 20 to facilitate the settling of issues, including the mode of trial, whether by jury or judge alone and the date of trial.

Regarding concerns about pre-trial publicity, DPP Llewellyn noted that in recent weeks, there has been a lot of public discourse about the matter, which involved complainants, media practitioners, members of the public on social media platforms and other interested parties.

DPP Llewellyn pointed out that, knowing case law on pre-trial publicity, abuse of process and the overriding objective of fairness to the accused being at the heart of due process, she and her team discussed the concerns about the possible deleterious impact on the fairness of the impending trial.

She noted that it is a critical principle within Jamaica’s jurisprudence that justice must not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done.

She said the concern of possible negative impacts on the fairness of the trial proceedings of the accused has been shared with her in a recent, without prejudice, conversation with defense lawyer, John Clarke.

She said her office acknowledges and respects the constitutional right of every citizen to freely express themselves on any subject of their choosing, whether privately or in the public domain, within the parameters allowed by law.

But while the need for persons to ventilate their concerns and even speculate on every aspect of the matter, whether it exists in reality or not, is understandable, members of the public should be reminded that, in the court of law, fairness to the accused, who is innocent until proven guilty by evidence given in court, is a critical principle of law and practice which the courts guard jealously.

She said the court of public opinion has no such legal safeguards, but unfortunately, the pre-trial publicity, as well as excessive public discourse, can possibly undermine the fairness of the trial and has done so in previously decided cases.

DPP Llewellyn said this case is a very complex one with voluminous material, adding that there are still ongoing investigations into other aspects of the matter involving SSL which are similarly complex.

She said the prosecutorial authorities, including the investigators would be grateful if the public regards the case against Jean Ann Panton as being under judicial consideration.

Generally, witnesses in all cases, whether they are of high public interest or not, are urged to adhere to best practice.

This means that once witnesses have given a statement in a matter before the court, they should try, as far as possible to be discreet and await due process, which will facilitate the said witnesses giving their evidence in court.

DPP Llewellyn said in light of the fact that the case against Ms. Panton has not yet been completed and is under the active consideration by the court, her office wants members of the public to be judicious with their public discourse in this matter.

If they do not, it may compromise the prosecution of the matter and also ongoing investigations into other aspects of the SSL matter.

DPP Llewellyn pointed out that the court will not hesitate to make certain orders, either at the behest of the prosecution or defense, or of its own motion, in a bid to safeguard the integrity and fairness of the process given perceived excessive pre-trial publicity.