The Court of Appeal has declined an application to quash the conviction of a man who admitted handling a firearm in the wake of revelations calling into question the DNA evidence used in his case.

While the court heard arguments that Kofi Dill’s 2011 conviction should be overturned because his decision to plead guilty was tainted by flawed DNA evidence, the panel refused the application.

In a decision written by Justice of Appeal Sir Gary Hickinbottom, dated November 21, the court found that Mr Dill was not “bound” by the DNA evidence.

He wrote: “Far from holding his hands up to the offence in January 2011 when the DNA evidence was received, the appellant, no doubt on advice, co-operated and assisted the authorities with a view to pleading guilty if the terms were acceptable to him.

“The defendant, of course, knows if he is guilty or not. He will be advised, as no doubt the appellant was, that if he pleads guilty that will be reflected in sentence and that co-operation with the authorities in relation to the instant or other offences is required by statute to be taken into account as mitigation.

“Those, in themselves, do not inhibit a defendant’s freedom of choice.”

The judge added that he did not believe the “defective nature” of the DNA evidence had spoilt the validity of the guilty plea in all of the circumstances of the case.

Sir Gary wrote: “I accept, of course, that that evidence was relevant to his decision to plead.

“But, without any focus on that evidence, he appears to have sought to do a deal with the authorities whereby he practically eliminated the risk of being prosecuted for far more serious offences committed with the firearm, entirely eliminated the risk of his pregnant girlfriend being prosecuted and exchanged the risk of a much higher sentence for the certainty of an eight-year custodial term by pleading guilty.

“From his point of view, that would have been a deal worth considering without the DNA evidence.

“I accept that, with that evidence it was far more attractive, but I do not consider that, on all the evidence, it can be said that the appellant’s mind was overborne by that defective evidence or, consequently, that his conviction on his own guilty plea was a miscarriage of justice.”

Mr Dill’s case involved a loaded Rexio RJ Series .38 Calibre Special revolver that was recovered by police on December 22, 2010, in the Government Gate area of Pembroke.

He admitted handling the gun, but pleaded not guilty to handling a .38 calibre bullet, with the charge left to lie on file.

A 22-year-old female co-defendant denied handling the same firearm and the Crown opted not to proceed with the case against her.

Mr Dill was subsequently sentenced to eight years behind bars, which he has since served.

However, his case was highlighted in a review of cases potentially tainted by faulty DNA evidence produced by forensics expert Candy Zuleger, of Florida-based Trinity DNA Solutions, which contained “numerous mistakes”.

Ms Zuleger found that Mr Dill was included as a contributor to a DNA mixture obtained from the trigger/trigger guard, and the likelihood of an unrelated individual being found in the mixture was 1 in 130,000 for a Black Bermudian and 1 in 53,000 for a White Bermudian.

However, a review of the DNA found that the samples were “of poor quality” and should have been deemed inconclusive.

While Mr Dill pleaded guilty, he said in an affidavit that he was innocent of the offence.

He wrote: “I entered a guilty plea because I believed, no matter what the truth was, the DNA evidence from an expert witness from the United States would be accepted over my word.

“She would say it was our DNA and we would say it wasn’t. If I were on the jury, I would have convicted us on her evidence.”

During a hearing this month, Susan Mulligan, counsel for Mr Dill, said the flawed DNA evidence presented to him meant that he could not make a properly informed decision as to whether he should plead guilty.

She said: “That is the most fundamental right to any defendant before the criminal court — to know the case against them and be able to make an informed decision.

“He had the right to contest the case and know what he was actually facing.”

Adley Duncan, for the Crown, accepted that the evidence had “tainted” the guilty plea, but said that as a prosecutor he would have pursued the case even without the DNA evidence.

Mr Duncan told the court that if the conviction was quashed, the Crown would not seek to bring Mr Dill to a retrial.

Sir Gary wrote that had the matter gone to trial and a jury convicted Mr Dill after hearing Ms Zuleger’s flawed evidence, he would have no difficulty being persuaded that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

He added: “However, by his guilty plea, the appellant publicly accepted his guilt. What might have happened had he pleaded not guilty is not to the point.”

Sir Gary added that Mr Dill confessed to handling a firearm in a statement to police intended to distance him from more serious offences that had been committed with the weapon.

He said: “In that, it seems to have been successful — he was not prosecuted for any of those other matters.”

• 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