Convicted killer Darronte Dill could become eligible for parole this year as a result of a Court of Appeal ruling.

Dill was sentenced to life in prison for the brutal 2008 double murder of Maxwell Brangman and Frederick Gilbert.

While the Supreme Court had ordered that Dill serve at least 20 years of that sentence before becoming eligible for parole, the Court of Appeal found that under Bermuda law, the maximum tariff that could be issued was seven years.

Court of Appeal president Justice Sir Scott Baker said: “This is not a conclusion we have reached with any enthusiasm, but in our view it reflects the current state of the law.”

During his trial, the court heard that Dill and an accomplice attacked the victims as they slept in a shed in St David’s early on September 21, 2008. Dill stabbed Mr Gilbert, 53, 13 times before the victim escaped into the sea and died.

Dill then joined his accomplice in attacking 57-year-old former Bermuda Regiment soldier Mr Brangman. Dill stabbed him and slit his throat twice before his accomplice smashed his head with a rock.

Dill then set the shed on fire, burning Mr Brangman’s body.

He confessed to the killings during a sting operation and a subsequent Police interview, telling officers that he videoed “the white guy burning” on his cell phone.

He also confirmed he and his accomplice, who he refused to name, disposed of their clothes and weapons in someone’s trash in St David’s, claiming they went home naked afterwards.

Dill was charged with the offences in October of 2008 and pleaded not guilty, trying to pin the blame on fellow suspect Roger Lightbourne Sr, but was convicted of murdering both men by a unanimous verdict.

Prosecutors alleged that Dill was a member of a gang who committed the killings to prove himself as “a hard guy” in the criminal underworld, but Dill denied any gang motive in the crime during the interview, telling detectives he committed the murders simply because “I wanted to know what it was like to take a life”.

While sentencing judges can order those convicted of murder to serve a minimum period of up to 15 years before becoming eligible for parole, that tariff is seven years for defendants who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offence.

There is no such tariff in place for those under 16. At the time of the killings, Dill was three days shy of his 18th birthday.

During the original sentencing in 2010, Chief Justice Richard Ground noted that the Court of Appeal had found the legislated limitations to be unlawful, but that ruling was subsequently overturned by the UK’s Privy Council in the cases of Ze Selassie and Jermaine Pearman.

The House of Assembly has since approved amendments to the law granting sentencing judges greater freedom in setting tariffs, but the amendment did not affect the tariffs for those under the age of 18.

Delivering their ruling on the appeal, the Appeals Justices said it was not appropriate in law to make the tariffs for the two murders to run consecutively, and they dismissed a suggestion by Director of Public Prosecutions Rory Field that a three-year suspended sentence for possessing a bladed article — which was hanging over Dill at the time of the murders — could be enacted.

Given all of the circumstances, the Court of Appeal amended Dill’s sentence, reducing the period that must be served before becoming eligible for parole to seven years.

However, the judges also noted that becoming eligible for parole was a “far cry” from getting parole, stating that the Parole Board can consider the facts of the case and the relevant Minister can give the Board a direction regarding the need to protect the public.