“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”— Desmond Tutu

The October 31, 2024 judgment of the Privy Council setting aside the murder conviction of Julian Washington is a landmark ruling for our island. In its ruling, the board wrote that a miscarriage of justice had occurred owing to flawed DNA evidence being allowed to be presented at Mr Washington’s trial.

At the heart of the matter was the DNA analysis methodology used by Trinity DNA Solutions, a now-defunct Florida-based forensics firm. Section 55 of the judgment states:

“The board considers it appropriate to reiterate the duties of an expert witness as: (a) the flaws in the DNA evidence were not disclosed by [Candy] Zuleger to those conducting the trial; (b) basic assumptions were omitted from Ms Zuleger’s report; and (c) factors which clearly undermined her opinion were omitted from Ms Zuleger’s report and evidence. However, before doing so it is appropriate to set out the impact of the flawed expert DNA evidence which was given at this trial.”

Section 57 also states the duties on an expert witness in Bermuda that were not followed. This, in the shadow of the aforementioned section, unfairly skewed the flawed evidence against Mr Washington.

But these sections are not why I have written. The why is in sections 60 and 61. Between 2009 and 2015, all DNA analysis was undertaken by Trinity DNA Solutions and, as the Privy Council states, “the flaws which occurred in the appellant’s case may have occurred in other cases”.

I do not assume to know in which cases these flaws have occurred. I do not write to proclaim the gross miscarriage of justice on any person within our prison system. I do not write with any personal investment that would be borne out of Mr Washington’s ruling and any subsequent hope of an overturned conviction for myself. I write because I have serious concerns about how the review process, as outlined in section 61 by the Department of Public Prosecutions, is being handled.

In Britain, there is the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which handles matters such as this; where convicted persons can apply to have their case reviewed. The most important aspect of the CCRC is that it is a truly independent body which enjoys the trust of the public. Public trust is critical when dealing with matters such as this; where a family are told that the man who has spent more than a decade in prison for their loved one’s murder is innocent; where the course of a man’s life has for ever been altered because of a wrongful conviction.

The DPP stated in section 61(a) that a review commenced on April 24, 2024 by Detective Sergeant Jewel Hayward, Forensic Support Unit Supervisor in the Bermuda Police Service. I will not lie to you; I did not pay attention to this important fact when I read the Washington judgment after it was published. It is not a fact that would have resonated with me.

But in the past week, I have seen Officer Hayward’s name on witness statements and seen their signature on evidentiary disclosures of multiple inmates. When this was brought to my attention, and I was referred back to the Privy Council judgment, a light bulb went off in my head. How can someone who, in their professional capacity, was not only part of the collection of evidence, but provided trial testimony, be allowed to be anywhere near a review of 247 cases where DNA evidence was found?

In business, companies are often required to be subjected to audits by third-party firms to meet regulatory requirements. This is important because it removes bias or conflicts of interest towards the outcome. Now, I am not stating that there is any bias involved by Officer Hayward — and by extension, the DPP — but there is certainly a conflict of interest.

If the DPP, the Minister of Justice and the Governor are serious about the institution of our justice system, they will establish an independent commission to review these cases. They will also begin to contact any convicted persons, as stated in section 62(a) so that persons can make their own submissions (section 62(b)). This process should be transparent in an effort to remove the perceptions of bias and/or corruption which erodes the fragile faith that many have in our criminal justice system.

The story of Julian Washington is a tragic one that should never be repeated — although we would be naive to think that it won’t happen again. Throughout his time in prison, Mr Washington maintained his innocence, as do others who are incarcerated at present.

How many more behind our walls are innocent? This is a question that must be urgently and impartially answered. I challenge the public to use their voice to see that it does.

• Behind The Walls is a resident of Westgate Correctional Facility