A recent Royal Gazette article reports that Jay Dill, convicted of murder in 2013, is seeking permission to pursue judicial review of a decision by Bermuda’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) relating to the Trinity DNA case review. The report states that the DPP:
refused to disclose material relating to her review of convictions involving expert evidence from Trinity DNA Solutions and its founder Candy Zuleger, and refused to refer his murder conviction for independent expert review.
1. Background: Trinity DNA and the Privy Council ruling
Forensic scientist Candy Zuleger, founder of Trinity DNA Solutions, conducted DNA testing for the Bermuda Police Service for roughly a decade. Concerns about the testing methodology became legally significant after the Privy Council overturned a conviction in Washington v The King (2024).
The Privy Council judgment explains that the DNA evidence presented at trial contained scientific inaccuracies, which undermined the safety of the conviction.
The Board also recorded that a comprehensive review of Trinity-related cases had begun.
Primary source – Privy Council judgment:
The court noted that Trinity had been involved in hundreds of cases, making a systematic review necessary to identify possible miscarriages of justice.
2. The Trinity DNA Review Protocol
The Privy Council judgment summarises the review process described by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
According to the information presented to the court:
- the review began on 24 April 2024
- it applied to all convictions involving Trinity DNA evidence
- relevant case materials, including trial transcripts, would be reviewed
- an independent forensic expert (Dr Barbara Llewellyn) would assess the evidence
- individuals whose cases were affected would be notified
- those individuals could make submissions
- they could also instruct their own expert
- the independent expert’s report would be disclosed to them
These points were summarised in the Privy Council judgment when discussing the transparency of the review.
Source: as above – case ID JCPC/2022/0046
3. The Later Review Methodology Announced by the DPP
In August 2025, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued a public statement announcing that the Trinity review had been completed.
The methodology described there differed somewhat from the process outlined to the Privy Council.
The DPP explained that the review involved:
- assessing the evidence in each conviction without considering the Trinity DNA evidence
- determining whether a jury would still likely have convicted
- referring only those cases where the conviction might not have been secured without the DNA evidence to an independent forensic expert.
Source: Government of Bermuda statement
This approach appears to mean that not every Trinity case was automatically referred to the independent expert.
4. Legal Framework for Disclosure in Bermuda
Disclosure questions in Bermuda are governed by several legal regimes. These include:
(a) Public Access to Information Act 2010 (PATI)
PATI provides the public with access to government records. However, the Act contains significant exemptions, particularly for:
- law-enforcement information
- records affecting a fair trial
- legally privileged material
- personal information.
Relevant provisions include sections 30–37 of the Act.
PATI states that records held by the Attorney-General or Director of Public Prosecutions which are subject to legal professional privilege are exempt from disclosure.
(b) Personal Information Protection Act 2016 (PIPA)
As of 2025, requests by individuals for their own personal data are governed by PIPA rather than PATI. Under PIPA, individuals have the right to request access to their personal information held by organisations, including public authorities. However, access may be refused where disclosure would:
- reveal legally privileged material
- prejudice criminal proceedings
- reveal confidential sources
- disclose another person’s personal information.
Source: PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT 2016
(c) Criminal disclosure rules
Pre-trial disclosure obligations arise under the Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure Act 2015, but these apply primarily to criminal proceedings and trials.
Source: CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE ACT 2015
They do not specifically regulate post-conviction review exercises such as the Trinity review.
5. Possible Lawful Grounds for Withholding Review Material
Several legal bases may justify withholding some or all review material. These include:
Legal professional privilege
Communications between prosecutors and legal advisers may be privileged and therefore exempt from disclosure.
Law-enforcement exemptions
Disclosure might prejudice criminal proceedings or reveal investigative techniques.
Personal data of third parties
Review files may contain information relating to other individuals whose privacy rights must be protected.
Fair-trial considerations
Disclosure during ongoing litigation or appellate processes may be restricted to protect procedural fairness.
These protections appear in both PATI and PIPA.
6. Legitimate Expectation
One of the central legal issues raised by the current judicial review appears to be legitimate expectation. In public law, a legitimate expectation can arise when:
- a public authority makes a clear representation
- individuals reasonably rely on that representation.
The Privy Council judgment records statements indicating that:
- affected individuals would be notified of the review
- they could make submissions
- the independent expert’s report would be disclosed.
Source: para 61 – Julian Washington (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bermuda)
If those representations were sufficiently clear, an argument may arise that individuals whose convictions were reviewed had a legitimate expectation of notification or disclosure.
Whether such an expectation exists is ultimately a question for the court.
7. Previous Case Referrals
Public reporting indicates that some cases were referred to the Court of Appeal following the Trinity review. The DPP announced that the review identified two potential miscarriages of justice, which were subsequently referred to the court.
Source: 21/08/2025 – DPP Completes Comprehensive Review of DNA Cases Following Privy Council Ruling
This suggests that the review did produce case-specific findings, some of which were used in appellate proceedings.
8. Judicial Review as the Appropriate Legal Mechanism
In Bermuda, challenges to administrative decisions by public authorities are typically brought by judicial review. Applications are made to the Supreme Court under Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Judicial review allows courts to assess whether a decision was:
- unlawful
- irrational
- procedurally unfair.
This appears to be the route now pursued by Jay Dill.
9. Questions Likely to be Considered by the Supreme Court
If permission for judicial review is granted, the court may consider several issues:
1. Scope of the review protocol
Did the process described to the Privy Council create obligations regarding notification, disclosure or independent review?
2. Legitimate expectation
Did those representations create a legitimate expectation for affected individuals?
3. Lawfulness of the DPP’s methodology
Was it lawful to conduct a preliminary safety assessment before referring cases to an independent expert?
4. Disclosure obligations
Was the refusal to disclose review material consistent with applicable disclosure laws and exemptions?
5. Procedural fairness
Did the refusal deprive the applicant of a meaningful opportunity to pursue appellate remedies?
10. Conclusion
The Trinity DNA review arose from a serious forensic failure identified by the Privy Council. It was intended to:
- identify potentially unsafe convictions
- ensure corrective action where necessary
- maintain confidence in the criminal justice system.
However, because the review was not established by statute, many questions about procedure and disclosure appear to fall into the realm of administrative law and judicial oversight.
The current judicial review application may therefore clarify:
- how such systemic conviction reviews should operate,
- what level of transparency is required,
- and what rights affected individuals have to access review materials.
Until the Supreme Court considers the matter, the legal position remains unsettled.