Appeal court judges will be asked to overturn the “unsafe” conviction of a man imprisoned for eight years after he admitted handling a gun.

Kofi Dill admitted he handled the Rexio RJ Series .38 Calibre Special revolver when he appeared before the Supreme Court in August 2011 — but the DNA evidence proffered by prosecutors has now been found to contain “numerous mistakes”.

The matter is listed for the Court of Appeal on November 6, when Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, will request that 46-year-old Mr Dill’s conviction be quashed owing to a “miscarriage of justice”.

The DPP reopened Mr Dill’s case as part of a review launched in the wake of the quashing last year of the murder and attempted murder convictions of Julian Washington, also because of flawed DNA evidence.

The review looked at all cases in which forensics expert Candy Zuleger, of Florida-based Trinity DNA Solutions, provided evidence that resulted in a conviction.

Ms Clarke announced in August that the review of 273 cases was complete, with two more unsafe convictions identified.

Mr Dill’s is the second of those; the first was Anwar Muhammad, who had his 2012 convictions for attempted murder and using a firearm overturned in the Court of Appeal in June.

According to an affidavit sworn in August this year by Ms Clarke, which was shared with The Royal Gazette by the Bermuda Equal Justice Initiative, she “received and subsequently reviewed fresh evidence” about Mr Dill’s conviction “that brought the reliability of Candy Zuleger in this case into question”.

Ms Clarke stated: “Numerous mistakes and omissions in the analysis and reporting of DNA profiles in this case have been identified to me, to the extent that I do not feel able to trust the reliability of the results produced by Trinity DNA Solutions in this case.

“I formed the opinion that Kofi Dill’s conviction in this case is unsafe.”

Ms Clarke said in her affidavit that she tried to reach Mr Dill to invite him to file an application for leave to appeal his conviction “out of time on the basis of fresh evidence” but was unsuccessful, so asked the Governor to make the application.

Of Mr Dill, she said: “I am informed that after he was released from HM Prisons, he relocated overseas.”

Ms Clarke added in her affidavit: “I am requesting this honourable court to allow the appeal, on the ground that there was a miscarriage of justice … Having reviewed all of the circumstances … I am of the opinion that it is not in the public interest for there to be a retrial.”

Her affidavit was accompanied by a witness statement from Barbara Llewellyn, an expert in forensic DNA commissioned by the DPP.

Dr Llewellyn described Ms Zuleger’s DNA profiling methods as “bad science” and “not allowed in any reputable and accredited forensic DNA laboratory”.

She said Ms Zuleger was “very biased in her interpretation” of samples and “demonstrated a lack of training on how to interpret a mixed DNA profile and calculate the frequency of that evidence DNA profile in the population”.

It is understood that Mr Dill is aware of the Court of Appeal hearing and is likely to appear remotely, represented by counsel from the legal aid office.

Mr Dill’s case involved a loaded firearm which 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 and that charge was 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.

At Mr Dill’s sentencing hearing, Ms Clarke described him as a member of the 42 gang.

She said the revolver was found 20 metres east of his Pembroke residence, in a drawstring backpack on a wall, and that his DNA was later found on the weapon.

The BPS said in a statement at the time: “The recovery of this firearm and the sentence of Mr Dill to a lengthy jail term makes Bermuda a safer place …”

Ms Clarke declined to comment ahead of the appeal court hearing. It was not possible to reach Ms Zuleger.

• On occasion, The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on a story that we deem may inflame sensitivities. 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