The Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed a review of DNA evidence used in past cases is continuing after a call for updates on the process that was launched last year.

Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told The Royal Gazette: “The review is ongoing and when it is finalised my findings will be made known as appropriate in the interests of justice.”

It came after the Bermuda Equal Justice Initiative said it had sent a formal letter to Ms Clarke requesting her to provide a public update on a review of DNA evidence cases after a judgment delivered by the Privy Council last October.

The group complained that there had been no public update on the review since November 2024, individuals had yet to be contacted and the cost of the review had not been disclosed.

The BEJI said that the letter sought an updated on the review, information on how many individuals had been contacted, clarifications on the availability of funding for affected persons to instruct independent experts, as well as the costs of the review.

Eron Hill, the group’s executive director, said: “Public confidence in our judicial system requires the state to act with urgency and transparency when conducting comprehensive reviews like the one initiated after Julian Washington’s release from custody.”

The judgment from the Privy Council found that the conviction of Mr Washington was unsafe because of deeply flawed DNA evidence prepared by Trinity DNA Solutions, which was presented at trial.

Ms Clarke said last November that her office had launched a comprehensive review of 247 cases in which Trinity DNA Solutions was involved, prioritising cases where people were incarcerated.

She said at that time three of the 247 were flagged up to her first “because they had the same DNA processes that were referred to in the Washington trial”. None of the three was approved for prosecution.

The DPP added that the remaining 244 cases “did not use the same process but are being reviewed in the interest of fairness”.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers