Julian Washington v The King (Bermuda)
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores systemic forensic and procedural failings that undermined a criminal conviction and signals likely reforms in expert reporting and oversight, especially for outsourced DNA work. It also sets a precedent in Bermuda on expert duties and disclosure standards in criminal cases.
Summary
At the Bermuda appeal in Julian Washington v The King, the respondent conceded flaws in the DNA evidence and agreed the conviction should be quashed, after initially resisting oral reasons for the disposal. The Crown accepted the eight criticisms in the appellant’s case informed by Professor Crane and additional failings identified by Dr. Llewellyn, including a lack of procedures at the Trinity laboratory. Counsel explained Bermuda applies common-law expert duties (citing Meyers) and that clearer declarations from experts have become practice only since the trial; the Crown says it provided Archbold guidance to the lab’s expert at the relevant time. The respondent rejected suggestions its earlier objection sought to avoid scrutiny, emphasizing transparency about the DNA concession.
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...