We can’t say we are surprised that politicians, their surrogates, and blinkered supporters lose all sense of decency and reason during election campaigns. We have, after all, been through many political silly seasons when myriad outlandish claims to tear down opponents are made and promises spew forth like water from a broken main.

We are, though, thankful that Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Ms Paula Llewellyn took the time to caution individuals — among them people well versed in law — that their irresponsible comments about the Stocks and Securities Limited (SSL) multi-billion-dollar fraud could damage the case.

Ms Llewellyn, one of this country’s most outstanding and level-headed public servants, issued the caution because politicians have dragged this case into the current election campaign, focusing almost exclusively on track and field legend Mr Usain Bolt, who is among more than 200 investors who lost money in the $4.7-billion fraud.

In a statement last week Ms Llewellyn pointed to the fact that extensive pre-trial publicity could see the court make certain orders — either at the behest of the prosecution, or defence, or its own motion — to safeguard the integrity and fairness of the process.

Said Ms Llewellyn: “Members of my team and I, being au fait with the 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, have discussed our concern about the possible deleterious impact on the fairness of the impending trial proceedings. It is a critical principle within our jurisprudence that justice must not only be done, but must manifestly appear to be done.”

In fact, she revealed that concern about possible negative impact on the fairness of the trial proceedings was shared with her in a recent conversation with Mr John Clarke, the attorney representing Ms Jean Ann Panton, the former SSL employee who is the only person charged so far in the matter.

Given all the charges and countercharges that have been swirling in the public domain, including on social media which has proven to be the wild west of defamation, no one should be surprised if the defence — as Ms Llewellyn has said is possible — applies to the court for an adjournment of the matter, which is scheduled for the Criminal Case Management Court on March 20.

If the defence so chooses, and the court obliges, we have no doubt that the same people who have been very vocal about this matter and baying for blood would be first out of the block to cast aspersions on the justice system. In fact, they would ignore Ms Llewellyn’s revelation that the Crown has been ready for some time to proceed to trial.

The people who know better and have sway over large numbers of followers should consider it their duty to heed Ms Llewellyn’s appeal to “be judicious with their public discourse in this matter”. For as she pointed out, some comments being made can compromise the prosecution of the matter as well as ongoing investigations into other aspects of the case.

While we respect people’s right to free expression, we remind that such freedom comes with great responsibility and, as the DPP pointed out, “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”.