Onus now on Wilkerson to implement prison reforms
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” — Henry David Thoreau
Mr Editor, the release of the report titled Review of Bermuda Department of Corrections in November 2025 was largely underwhelming if for no other reason than its name.
Unlike a catchy acronym like Sage, I fear that this report will likely fade in the public’s memory very quickly. And so I will take this opportunity to refer to the report going forward as the Wilkerson Report. I believe this is important because ownership of the report’s findings belongs to our Minister of Justice and Attorney-General. She, at present, is ultimately responsible for implementing — where practicable — the recommendations contained within it.
I think it is also important to remind your readership that the minister requested this review of our prisons from the Governor. For that, she deserves much credit. She also deserves credit for showing a willingness to engage with the resident population at Westgate — to better understand our issues and to find collaborative solutions where possible. But make no mistake, each finding in the report has minister Wilkerson’s name attached to it. The responsibility falls on her shoulders and I wish her every success.
To many — in and out of our prisons — the report’s central finding that there is “a regime for prisoners that is inconsistent and lacking in purpose” is no surprise. For the past 18 months, I have highlighted this in your publication. But I’m not here to take a victory lap. Because reports have been written before — Wheatley in 2012 and Munns in 2019. But giving credit where credit is due, the Wilkerson Report has, at least, been provided to the public and the minister has promised to provide quarterly updates in the Senate.
Mr Editor, it is my hope that your organisation will submit a Pati request for the full report. As stated previously, the prison administration has blocked inmates from submitting these requests in the past. But I believe it is important that the public feel confident that the redactions in this recent report are warranted — pertaining to matters of prison operational security and the protection of persons’ identity and not to protect the performance of the administrators of our prisons.
Mr Editor, the biggest insight for me didn’t come directly from this report. It came from MP Robert King’s response, published by you on May 27. Mr King makes two important points that I would like to highlight; points that speak to broader issues in our community — issues affecting far more than just our prisons. He speaks to how Casemates operated with a better culture; producing better outcomes — better men. This shows that solutions to our challenges aren’t only money and infrastructure.
He also mentions that there is a challenge finding suitable candidates for uniformed services. This, I believe, speaks to an education problem. Because I find it hard to believe that Bermuda doesn’t have an abundant pool of young, able-bodied persons seeking good-paying jobs.
I believe that first point speaks to desire — purpose. Do the people we have in charge of our prisons — our corrections system — want to see transformational education and rehabilitative services being provided to the incarcerated or have they adapted to a management culture that rewards silence, complicity and longevity above a commitment to duty and operational excellence? Do we promote those who do the right thing or those who simply follow orders and stick around long enough in dysfunctional systems?
It is my humble opinion that the Wilkerson Report answers these questions. But how do we fix the system?
It has long been my belief that legislative changes are necessary to improve the conditions of our prisons and the treatment of the incarcerated. Where some of our laws act as ceilings (ie, the speed limit), the Prisons Act 1979 and Prison Rules 1980 are very much the floor. They provide in many respects a minimum standard of care for prisoners. They also provide such broad discretion that most of the report’s findings can be instituted without any changes in legislation.
This highlights that the outcomes that the public sees with respect to the treatment of offenders is not because of some rigid statutory framework, but poor operational performance. I believe that more modern legislation is necessary in order to bring Bermuda’s correctional system in line with jurisdictions that are seeing successes in the reduction of their recidivism rate. Without such legislative changes, policy decisions can be made at the whim of the administration of the day.
I welcome the report’s finding (point 29) that the “Treatment of Offenders Board should be fully removed from the adjudication process” and that its focus should be centred on “monitoring welfare, investigating complaints, and ensuring that prisoners’ rights are upheld”. This will be an important change in holding prison administration accountable.
But owing to the board’s present statutory mandate, this change in function will likely require amendments to legislation. Such amendments should also provide the board enforcement powers when found that prison officials have violated rights. I believe that this point alone provides an opportunity for a more comprehensive review of our prison legislation.
Minister Wilkerson has spoken of the need for constitutional and judicial reforms since her tenure began and so I believe the appetite is there for further amendments to our laws.
Allow me to move on to Mr King’s second — and far more devastating — point. The Department of Corrections has, for years, stated its challenges in finding successful candidates. Now I believe that some of this has been because of unnecessary fitness requirements as well as candidates being disqualified for having personal ties to the incarcerated.
But in an island of our size, the latter issue will be difficult to avoid. I also believe that it is an important aspect of the rehabilitative process to have local officers who are invested in the wellbeing of our sons. Nevertheless, minister Wilkerson has publicly stated that she intends to evaluate the department’s hiring criteria.
But the overall issue points to a failing in our public education system that is seeing a reduced pool of qualified applicants entering the workforce — creating a reliance on foreign labour.
This goes to show that seemingly unrelated issues in our island’s critical systems have impacts in other areas. Declining test scores reduces the application pool for the prison service. Fewer prison officers mean programmes can’t operate. Recidivism will only increase — meaning more crime.
Mr Editor, I’m sure there have been many who have read your stories about our prisons and the Wilkerson Report and don’t find it relevant to their lives. It is easy to label the incarcerated as a group of “others” that you don’t need to care about. But our island is far too interconnected for isolationist mindsets. So allow me to pivot to the final issue that I’d like to highlight today; one that may not affect everyone directly, but one that touches at a foundational principle of our democracy.
It would be irresponsible of me if I didn’t take this opportunity to again point out that there are men like Julian Washington who have been wrongfully imprisoned and have had the course of their lives for ever altered. Men who’ve had opportunities snatched from them and now face an uphill battle to obtain their freedom. And yet, even if successful, they may struggle to reclaim their name for the rest of their lives.
The admission by the Crown in the October 31, 2024, Privy Council judgment (Julian Washington v The King) that the Government relied on flawed DNA analysis in 274 criminal cases is something that doesn’t get talked about enough. Nor does the Director of Public Prosecution’s handling of the review of those cases. Though to this paper’s credit, its editorial on December 16, 2025, raised necessary questions. But this needs to be talked about more. Because this matter is far from settled and the extent of the injustice is unknown.
In a statement from the DPP, dated January 20, Cindy Clarke makes it clear that her office made the determination as to which convictions were deemed safe. I have no doubt that Ms Clarke and those under her supervision who conducted the review relied upon their experience and education to come to their conclusions. But a DPP’s office is hardly an independent arbiter. And considering that we have seen a few high-profile cases in recent years where Supreme Court judges have either dismissed charges against defendants or instructed juries to return not-guilty verdicts owing to lack of sufficient evidence, how can the public be sure that the DPP’s judgment in this DNA review is without error?
How is the DPP to know what verdict a jury would have returned had now-flawed DNA evidence not been allowed to be presented in court? With the prevalence of crime-drama television and the way that DNA evidence is presented as nearly infallible, it is safe to assume that some jurors would have given such evidence significant weight in their deliberation process. Possibly enough to remove any reasonable doubt of a defendant’s guilt.
The cloud hanging over this review is large — even if no one wants to look up. The manner in which this review was handled goes directly to the heart of a sentiment that some in our community share — that justice is not blindly administered. And in a modern democracy, the criminal justice system is the foundation. A foundation that we should not want to see eroded.
In September last year, in response to the Bermuda Equal Justice Initiative’s call for a commission of inquiry, the Governor stated that he found no issue with the DPP’s handling of the DNA review. And while I disagree with his opinion, he does correctly state that there are legal mechanisms in place such as appeals and judicial review. And while I hold on to hope that these avenues can provide necessary redress, I still believe that this matter is worthy of remaining in the public discourse until we can feel confident that any other injustices have been remedied.
During the Ministry of Justice’s Budget announcement in March, the Junior Minister, Dennis Lister III, spoke to the House of Assembly, announcing efficiency measures for the Legal Aid Office. At the same time, he announced a 21 per cent increase in that office’s budget, taking it to $2.69 million. Operational efficiency should always be sought and the announcement of increased recruitment for in-house counsel — providing greater access to legal representation — is something I can applaud. But this announcement should not have been viewed in a vacuum.
The Legal Aid committee has a statutory duty to disburse public funds in a responsible manner for qualified criminal (and civil) defendants. And they must balance this fiscal responsibility with a defendant’s need of competent representation and — when necessary — expert witness testimony.
While the Court of Appeal has recently ruled on the committee’s ability under current law to fund foreign counsel in local proceedings, the committee is well within its statutory duty to approve the funding of expert witnesses. But based on its annual reports, I am unable to determine how many requests it receives for expert witnesses and how many it denies. In light of the Washington judgment, Mr Editor, I’m sure you can understand the importance of criminal defendants being afforded their own expert witnesses.
I believe that this DNA review is of such national importance that the Premier should have created a commission of inquiry and the Ministry of Justice should have requested a supplemental budget specifically for convicted persons to fund their own reviews. Our government has boasted of Corporate Income Tax revenues, so the money is there. The question then becomes, how willing are we as a country to remedy any and all instances of injustice?
The tale of Julian’s decade in prison is one that this island should never want to retell for another. For it is far too costly. But we cannot close the book just yet. Because no matter how inconvenient the pursuit of justice is, it is something that we can never give up on.
• Behind The Walls is a resident of Westgate Correctional Facility
You must be Registered or to post comment or to vote.
