A former prison inmate who spent a decade in jail after being convicted in 2012 of attempted murder and using a firearm has had his convictions quashed after the central item of forensic evidence against him was deemed unreliable.

The ruling yesterday by the Court of Appeal meant that Anwar Muhammad, who had been accused and convicted by a jury of shooting and injuring Shantoine Prinston Burrows in August 2010, has had his name cleared.

Mr Muhammad served ten years of his 25-year sentence in Westgate before getting released on parole.

His conviction had been upheld in a 2014 appeal, although the Court of Appeal at that time made him eligible for parole 2½ years earlier than the original 12½-year threshold.

However, the court heard yesterday from Susan Mulligan, Mr Muhammad’s lawyer, that his conviction got upheld in 2014 on the grounds that the DNA evidence had been believed by the court to be “overwhelming”.

Ms Mulligan said: “At the time, the DNA was not disputed because we were unaware of all this.”

A fresh review of the forensic methods used in his case meant that Mr Muhammad, who appeared with his girlfriend to hear the ruling, has had that conviction overturned.

The investigation of his case and the ruling to dismiss it followed the precedent of Julian Washington, who was released from a prison sentence for murder in May 2024.

Mr Washington was freed after a successful appeal challenging DNA evidence used in his trial, submitted by Candy Zuleger, a US-based forensics expert who appeared in many of the island’s high-profile criminal cases.

That precedent, in which the evidence against Mr Washington was deemed to be “flawed, imbalanced and wrongly implicated him”, has led to a review of hundreds of cases.

Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told The Royal Gazette that Mr Muhammad’s case was the first of several that she had flagged up after her inspection of 273 files in which Ms Zuleger appeared as a witness at the trial.

Ms Clarke’s assessment took into account only cases where she had not served as prosecutor, meaning others have been sent to be examined by other court officers.

“From that 273, I found seven that caused me to pause,” Ms Clarke said. “This is the first of those seven that I have said is unsafe.”

Forensic standards have evolved since Mr Muhammad’s trial, the court heard, casting doubt on Ms Zuleger’s methodology.

The evidence used in Mr Muhammad’s trial was called into question after an independent expert review, which included taking into account the updated standards produced by the US-based Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods.

Ms Clarke told the court that, based on the experts’ report delivered in April, “I am of the conviction that Mr Muhammad’s conviction was unsafe”.

She added: “All that remains is for me to advise that, having reviewed the matter, I am not seeking a retrial.”

Mr Muhammad was commended by the Court of Appeal for getting on with his life and becoming a positive figure in his community since his release.

Justice of Appeal Ian Kawaley told Ms Mulligan that the court was “pleased to hear that, despite the fact that he has served his full custodial term, rather than being broken by his experience, he has in fact been apparently restored”.

He added: “I commend him to continue his positive efforts in the community, and I hope that this experience has made him stronger rather than weaker, and he will go forward without bitterness or undue regret.”

Ms Mulligan told the court that her client had gone back to his old trade of working as a barber, and regularly posted YouTube videos aimed at dissuading young men from falling into criminal behaviour.

She said: “It’s unfortunate that Mr Muhammad has done all of his time and been through this ordeal, but he is doing very well and being a positive role model for people.”

She added: “He has come out of custody with a new perspective — he is here with his girlfriend and they are moving forward in a positive direction.”

Mr Muhammad did not speak in court.

Ms Clarke subsequently told the Gazette that, at the time the DNA featured in Mr Muhammad’s trial, “there was no reason to doubt it — there was no bad faith in accepting the evidence”.

However, she said forensic guidelines had been updated significantly in the years since. “Science progresses,” she added.

• 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